Where do babies come from? Or I lost it on the river!
It's a question we all asked at about 5 years old. The way our parent's explained it differed, but we can safely assume that by 12 we all knew that babies came about from sex.
So that's why I refuse to entertain the concept that a fetus is "raping it's mother" because she "did not consent to it being in her body". I have a news flash people: If you know that sex causes pregnancy, even if you take every step to not get pregnant, you are still consenting to pregnancy because it is the cost of the gamble.
Everyone knows that when you gamble you could very well lose your money. You go into a poker match with this knowledge. You lay down your bet, thinking you have a full- proof hand and lo and behold, you lose. Now you can not say "well I didn't consent to losing my money! I just consented to the act of gambling for other reasons!" and then proceed steal all the chips on the table. You went into the hand knowing that there was a high probability of losing your money, you lost your money despite your careful planning, and now you have to deal with it.
Now the crux of this argument comes in the fact that losing your money after losing a bet is NOT a punishment, but rather a foreseeable consequence of gambling. You gamble to feel good, make money, compulsion, get closer to the dealer, or whatever, but the "fun" of gambling takes into account the possibility of losing it all. It is your responsibility to uphold your end of the deal and relinquish your money.
When one consents to sex, she enters into a "bet" of sorts. The odds change depending on her contraceptives, but there is always the chance she will "lose it all" and become pregnant. To deny this is ludicrous, to maintain that this is a punishment is absurd. Sex is a gamble if you don't want a baby, if the cards fall against you you're responsible for the outcome. Even if you use every method of birth control known to man there's always a chance you'll "lose it on the river" and be stuck with the consequences. When was the last time you've seen someone refuse to pay up after losing a bet and walk away? Doing so would be a default on the "contract" of gambling, just as an abortion is a default on the "contract" of sex
So that's why I refuse to entertain the concept that a fetus is "raping it's mother" because she "did not consent to it being in her body". I have a news flash people: If you know that sex causes pregnancy, even if you take every step to not get pregnant, you are still consenting to pregnancy because it is the cost of the gamble.
Everyone knows that when you gamble you could very well lose your money. You go into a poker match with this knowledge. You lay down your bet, thinking you have a full- proof hand and lo and behold, you lose. Now you can not say "well I didn't consent to losing my money! I just consented to the act of gambling for other reasons!" and then proceed steal all the chips on the table. You went into the hand knowing that there was a high probability of losing your money, you lost your money despite your careful planning, and now you have to deal with it.
Now the crux of this argument comes in the fact that losing your money after losing a bet is NOT a punishment, but rather a foreseeable consequence of gambling. You gamble to feel good, make money, compulsion, get closer to the dealer, or whatever, but the "fun" of gambling takes into account the possibility of losing it all. It is your responsibility to uphold your end of the deal and relinquish your money.
When one consents to sex, she enters into a "bet" of sorts. The odds change depending on her contraceptives, but there is always the chance she will "lose it all" and become pregnant. To deny this is ludicrous, to maintain that this is a punishment is absurd. Sex is a gamble if you don't want a baby, if the cards fall against you you're responsible for the outcome. Even if you use every method of birth control known to man there's always a chance you'll "lose it on the river" and be stuck with the consequences. When was the last time you've seen someone refuse to pay up after losing a bet and walk away? Doing so would be a default on the "contract" of gambling, just as an abortion is a default on the "contract" of sex
Posted by Lauren at
7:22 AM
7 Comments:
thank you :) Oliver and I came up with it and I think it fits pretty well. Of course, losing money is never the desired outcome of gambling and pregnancy is sometimes a desired outcome of sex so really sex-pregnancy has an even stronger consent relationship.
By
Lauren, at 6:10 PM
Umm...So what kind of analogy would you use for rape victims? (Just out of curiosity, because they certainly aren't consenting to sex, nor pregnancy.)
By
Anonymous, at 1:40 PM
Rape victims are like church women walking down the street who happen to be pickpocketed.
What happened to them is unfair, non-coerced, and certainly non-concentual.
However, they women does not have the right to then kill said pickpocketer's son should for some bizzare reason he unavoidably ever be placed in her care.
Her responsibility is only in persuing justice twoards the pickpocketer.
Few would be sympathetic to a murderous church lady on the grounds that the father committed a grievous sin.
By
Lauren, at 3:09 PM
Yes...but the pickpocketer's son is not using her body in any way and has nothing to do with her or the crime at all. There is a huge difference with killing the pickpocketer's son who isn't involved with either of the two involved in the crime, and aborting the rapist's fetus which is a result of being raped. The only result of being pickpocketed is losing your wallet or something. :/ It has nothing to do with his son.
By
Anonymous, at 3:24 PM
But the son is just as innocent in either case. The rapists son (and yours) does nothing deserving of death.
Yes, the child is within your body without your concent, but he is no more guilty than a conjoined twin.
It would be highly unlikely that one could forcibly separate themselves from a weaker twin thus causing the weaker to die. Especially if within months the weaker would be able to survive on its own.
Killing anyone, attached or not, is entirely unjustifiable.
By
Lauren, at 7:21 AM
I think the difference here is that the pickpocketer's son isn't causing any kind of mental harm or physical harm/changes to the woman AT ALL. (Yes pregnancy can be harmful and dangerous at times, and yes it can cause mental harm especially if the woman was raped.) So obviously she is going to want to remove the fetus that is causing her this harm. I don't understand why saving your own sanity or physical being by removing an unwanted substance from your body is so wrong. But obviously I'll never get through to you. I don't think you realize how traumatic an experience it is when someone close to you kills themselves because their rapist's fetus is inside of them...ugh...I will never let that happen again...I won't be coming back here to argue this anymore. Too many horrible memories are brought up. Sorry to bother you with this...
By
Anonymous, at 8:54 AM
Thanks for all your wonderful information and sharing the story of your daughter my son was born with esophageal atresia and other complications on DEC. 9th 2007
By
Anonymous, at 10:12 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home