Acknowledging the risk isn't the same as consenting to the accident.
Nobody consents to accidents - accidents simply happen, it’s a fact of life. We have law to determine what to do when they occur. There’s no such thing as “consent to an accident” - you don’t consent to it on the road, you don’t consent to it when you trip on the stairs, you don’t consent to it when you burn your finger on a hot baking tray. You weren’t cautious enough, or you were simply unlucky, and something bad happened - consent never enters the picture.
Nobody is arguing that everybody gets what they consent to and nobody gets what they don't consent to. This is why you're disingenuous.
The core of your argument is that abortion is justified if the woman doesn’t consent to being pregnant. You’re arguing that because she got something she didn’t consent to, that problem must be rectified. That’s your entire point, unless I missed something.
Yeah, but I'd argue the one who brought it up as a silly strawman is the one behaving stupidly.
The notion that you can accept risk but reject consequence is silly, the person promoting that notion is acting stupidly.
Accepting risk isn't the same as consenting to what happens. For the umpteenth time, I accept the risks each time I get into the car, but that doesn't mean I consent to any accidents, whether or not they're my fault. It really sincerely sounds like you need to Google what the word means.
I think you’re having trouble understanding that nobody cares if you consent or not - you’ve accepted the risk. Should you find yourself in an accident, you may be found liable for it, regardless of whether you consent or not.
Then maybe you shouldn't have stupidly and irrelevantly brought up signing physical waivers? Just a thought.
I was explaining the concept of a waiver as an agreement that, as the name implies, waived specific rights or claims when agreed upon. Once that was out of the way, I explained how that applies to what you said.
You didn't, but that wasn't my criticism of your post. Please reread my post. Suggesting my problem with your post was you said you couldn't sue other motorists is disingenuous. Based on your recent statements though, it might just be you being stupid some more.
”My consent is completely relevant. I'm able to seek legal remedy because someone hit my car without my consent. I have legal recourse because the collision was against my consent, lol” - your words, not mine. Not that they matter, since they don’t relate to what’s being argued - I never said that you can’t seek legal remedy, I said that your consent doesn’t matter. You’re a party to the accident whether you consent to it or not, it’s not up to you.
Cool. Getting pregnant in the first place can't be undone either. That would require backwards time travel, and I've already had to ignore conversations about backwards time travel enough in this thread.
What can be done in the case of a car accident? Legal battles. Restitution. Repairs. Making someone whole. Just like how things can be done after a car accident, things can be done after a pregnancy. A person has a legal right to bodily autonomy, similar to how a person has a legal right to not get hit by a speeding motorist.
The point is consistently flying over your dome. You as a motorist shouldn’t be subject to a collision, and a woman shouldn’t be subject to an unwanted pregnancy, that much is correct. With that being said, both of those are very real possibilities, and law exists to govern what happens in such instances. Driving recklessly can lead to an accident, and that accident can be linked to legal liability for any and all damages caused. How does that extend to abortion? Can one have sex recklessly, and does that entail a degree of liability for the resulting damages? If we want to be consistent with this analogy then the answer must necessarily be yes.
Getting on the highway is not consent to getting hit by a speeding motorist, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not you acknowledged those risks. Having sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not the woman acknowledged those risks. Learn what consent is, and stop being so goddamn stupid.
Nobody’s particularly concerned about consent if you’ve accepted pregnancy as one of the possible outcomes of risky sexual activity. The state is not obligated to help you. Whether it should help you is a matter of public debate that’s happening right now.
Your analogy is so flawed. I'll be as condescending as you and "walk you through this slowly."
- Driver = pregnant woman
- Car accident = Getting pregnant
- Risks of being on the highway = risks of having sex
- No consent to get hit by speeding motorist = no consent to get pregnant
- Legal rigamarole = process of getting an abortion
I’ll do you one better. Check it out, my list is shorter!
- Motorist = Some dude
- Car accident = getting pregnant
- Running across the highway with your arms flailing = Risky sexual behaviour
- No consent to being hit by a motorist = no consent to pregnancy
If you run across the highway with your arms flailing and end up in an accident due to your risky behaviour, not only do I not care about whether you consented to it or not, I also find you liable for the accident. You knew what you were doing, you knew that the odds of getting hit by a car are high when you’re acting like an idiot on the highway, and with that knowledge in mind you did it anyway. It’s your fault, buster.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is so simple, I'm actually bored. My avatar has never been so apt.
One of those days I’ll have to find my shoop of it, the one with the single teardrop rolling down the cheek, a’la Iron Eyes Cody. Ahh, those were the days - when we argued about the Wii U being crap, not all this nonsense.
You're muddying the analogy, since I don't think we were talking about the state or even a quarrel in the pregnancy part of the analogy. You seem to have run into the analogy and tripped over yourself a few times. I suggest you reread the part where I slowed it down for you.
You mentioned that as a victim of the accident you deserve restitution. I’m helping you figure out who’s liable in this scenario.
If you feel like I was extra abrasive or name-calling in this post, it's because a.) I know you can handle it, and b.) Your responses here have been that next-level stupid.
Nah, I like it spicy.
You're a disingenuous idiot with a hardon for strawmen if you think I'm arguing consent is at all relevant to physical acts. A woman not consenting to getting pregnant can still get pregnant. A person who doesn't consent to being hit by a car can be hit by a car. I've said numerous times already that nobody is arguing that everyone gets everything they consent and never get what they don't consent to. You mentioned earlier that you don't think I read your posts, but I clear do, and you clearly don't read mine.
That was never the point, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're behaving this shamelessly stupid. It isn't even a matter of whether or not we agree; you don't even understand the point or what I am or am not arguing.
The scenario above is a logical consequence of your train of thought. If consent mattered at all in the case of an unfortunate accident, it would make sense. It doesn’t, and you have trouble coming to terms with that, so you’re getting flustered. I understand your point, and I’m actively making fun of it because it’s a bad argument. Consent is only relevant as far as deliberate action is concerned - you can’t expect consent in matters that are not deliberate because people generally can’t look into the future.
Consent doesn’t work backwards, either - you can’t give consent at the time and retract it later (unless you’re concocting one of those ridiculous modern college scenarios where the guy doesn’t pick up his phone the next day, so consensual sex turn into rape all of a sudden). Once consent is given, it is given. It can’t be retracted after the fact, or after the act, whichever you find amusing, unless it was given under a false pretense.
A woman who is a victim of rape does not consent, obviously. The rapist is using force to overcome her. She doesn’t “expect” to get raped, and her agency, her ability to consent or not, is removed. When a woman has consensual sex, she should *expect* that the possibility of becoming pregnant is very real, and take necessary precautions to prevent that from happening. Failing to do so logically carries some degree of liability since pregnancy isn’t a surprise, it’s an expected consequence of intercourse. She had full agency throughout the process, only the pregnancy itself is up to chance - chance she was aware of. We’ve been over this already.
