Reblogged: Tacit Consent to Pregnancy? No!

[dianahsieh]

This short commentary raises an excellent question about the “if you have sex, you’re consenting to pregnancy” argument against abortion rights.

According to many pro-lifers, when women consent to sex, they thereby consent to (and commit themselves to) bearing any resulting children. And so, in deciding to having sex, these women have in effect voluntarily waived their right to get an abortion.

Now, I find this pro-life claim utterly baffling: consent to sex is clearly different from consenting to anything further, many women deliberately use birth control to avoid pregnancy, many women plan on getting an abortion if they should end up pregnant, etc. According to this pro-life claim, it seems, we are supposed to interpret the act of consensual sex itself as involving some sort of mysterious tacit consent and occult commitments that are not only morally significant, but so overwhelmingly morally important as to completely override the actual preferences of the woman. I don’t think actions carry occult commitments, and this all seems like superstition to me.

But here’s my question. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that actions do carry occult commitments. Even granting this, we still need a way of telling what those commitments are. Without a method of interpretation, we’re utterly in the dark. For example, a typical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear the child, waiving one’s right to an abortion. But a more radical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear and raise the child, waiving one’s right to an abortion as well as one’s right to put the child up for adoption. My question is: how are we supposed to tell which interpretation is correct, and which occult commitments are (and are not) carried by the act of consensual sex?

Ultimately, all arguments against abortion rights — including the argument from tacit consent — depend on the claim that the fetus has a right to life. Ari Armstrong and I refuted that argument in our 2010 policy paper, The “Personhood” Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception. If you’ve not yet read it, be sure to check out the section on “Individual Rights and Abortion.”

That being said… over the past few months, I’ve been thinking off and on about how to defend abortion rights in a way that’s more persuasive than the standard pro-choice arguments, including the better arguments of Objectivists. I want to find a way to make my own view resonate better with reasonable people of the “but it’s a baby!” mindset. So if you have any thoughts on more effective rhetoric on this issue, I’d be interested to hear that in the comments. I’d be particularly interested to hear from people who switched from “pro-life” to pro-choice views: What convinced you?

Link to Original

[mdegges]

I understand the argument that women have the right to their own bodies and should be legally able to have abortions. But morally, does it end there? It's simple biology: if you don't use protection, you might end up pregnant. And even if you do use protection, you might end up pregnant. So what exactly are both parties consenting to when they have sex?

For ex: If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, but the man doesn't want anything to do with it, is he legally/morally free of responsibility? (In other words, should he be legally forced to pay child support for a kid he doesn't want? Can he choose to have no responsibility for his kid whatsoever?)

[Nicky]

I understand the argument that women have the right to their own bodies and should be legally able to have abortions. But morally, does it end there? It's simple biology: if you don't use protection, you might end up pregnant. And even if you do use protection, you might end up pregnant.

If you use protection properly, you won't end up pregnant. Or, at least, the odds of getting pregnant are about the same as getting hit by a meteor.

So what exactly are both parties consenting to when they have sex?

Nothing.

For ex: If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, but the man doesn't want anything to do with it, is he legally/morally free of responsibility?

Yes, of course.

[mdegges]

If you use protection properly, you won't end up pregnant. Or, at least, the odds of getting pregnant are about the same as getting hit by a meteor.

The odds are much better than that. I guess the key word here is properly, but the stats vary depending on what kind of protection you're using:

http://postimage.org/image/80rrl846z/

As the chart shows, many couples plan ahead and do use protection but the woman still ends up pregnant. Go figure.

Yes, of course.

I disagree. Obviously if the woman is trying to trick the man (ie: she told him she was using birth control when she really wasn't) so that she can get pregnant, she's being dishonest and immoral. In these kinds of scenarios the man doesn't have a moral responsibility to the woman (ie: paying for an abortion or helping to raise the child). But in other scenarios the man should take some moral responsibility for his actions. It takes two to tango.

[Nicky]

The odds are much better than that. I guess the key word here is properly, but the stats vary depending on what kind of protection you're using:

http://postimage.org/image/80rrl846z/

As the chart shows, many couples plan ahead and do use protection but the woman still ends up pregnant. Go figure.

Yes, the key word is "properly". When taken properly (and by properly I just mean women putting a pill in their mouth and swallowing it every day), the pill works with near perfect efficacy. When studies start counting women who were prescribed the pill but never bothered to take it, then failure rates go up to 8-10%. I guess that's the percentage of women who didn't take the drugs they were supposed to take. How that's supposed to reflect the effectiveness of a contraception method, I don't know.

Similarly to the pill, proper use of Depo-Provera (an injection administered every three months, that eliminates a lot of the side effects of the pill) results in a 0.2% failure rate over the course of one year (in studies that allowed some delays in administering it). Its use in some clinical trials (where it is administered by doctors and therefor used perfectly, with no delays, and interference by other drugs, etc. is eliminated), the failure rate is 0%.

I disagree. Obviously if the woman is trying to trick the man (ie: she told him she was using birth control when she really wasn't) so that she can get pregnant, she's being dishonest and immoral. In these kinds of scenarios the man doesn't have a moral responsibility to the woman (ie: paying for an abortion or helping to raise the child). But in other scenarios the man should take some moral responsibility for his actions. It takes two to tango.

Well, having sex without contraception, when you're not trying to have a child, is irrational. Irrational is immoral. The possible consequence of such immorality is that the woman has to undergo an invasive medical procedure to remove the pregnancy.

And for that, everyone who "tango-ed" is responsible. The man is exactly 50% responsible that an abortion became the best option.

But if the woman decides, all by herself, that she wants to keep the baby rather than have the abortion, then that is her decision and her responsibility from that point on. The notion that the man is still responsible is ridiculous. What if then the woman decides to raise the child to become a serial killer, also all by herself. Is the man responsible for that too? Where does this chain of easily avoidable consequences finally become too long? Is the man now responsible for an endless string of events, even though he wanted to and was perfectly willing to pay his share to avoid them all?

Edited January 29, 2013 by Nicky

[mdegges]

When taken properly (and by properly I just mean women putting a pill in their mouth and swallowing it every day), the pill works with near perfect efficacy.

Right.. because there's no other options, and the woman is the sole party responsible when it comes to protection.

The man is exactly 50% responsible that an abortion became the best option.

Are you saying that the man has three options (if his partner is pregnant and he doesn't want the baby) that are all *morally equivalent*? He can either 1) pay 50% of the abortion cost, if the woman decides she doesn't want to have a baby, 2) pay no medical fees at all, if the woman decides she wants to go through with her pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption, or 3) pay no medical fees or child support at all, if the woman decides to go through with her pregnancy and keep the baby.