Critiquing: Is Consent to Sex Consent to Pregnancy?

January 15, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Consent Debate — Logical Inconsistencies — Misleading Analogies — Moral Assumptions — Rights and Responsibilities

---

Overview

The content from the #STRask podcast episode “Is Consent to Sex Consent to Pregnancy?” presents a series of arguments and analogies aimed at refuting the claim that consenting to sex does not equate to consenting to pregnancy. Below is an evaluation of the logical coherence of the content, focusing on potential logical inconsistencies, fallacies, cognitive biases, and the need for substantiation.

Logical Inconsistencies

Accidental Harm Analogy: The podcast hosts compare the situation of consenting to sex without intending pregnancy to driving under the influence of alcohol without intending to cause an accident. They argue:

“Consent to driving under the influence of alcohol is not consent to having an accident. But having the accident is a result of being under the influence of alcohol.”

This analogy is problematic because it conflates two fundamentally different types of consequences. Driving under the influence inherently involves a high risk of causing harm, which is a direct violation of others’ rights. In contrast, consensual sex is a private act between individuals that does not inherently violate the rights of a potential fetus, as the fetus’s existence is contingent and not an established entity with rights at the time of conception.

Responsibility and Intent: The content states:

“Just because a person didn’t mean to do it does not mean they’re not responsible for it.”

This assertion oversimplifies the concept of responsibility by ignoring context. In legal and ethical terms, responsibility often considers intent and foreseeability. The failure to distinguish between foreseeable and unforeseen consequences introduces a logical inconsistency, as it overlooks the complexity of human actions.

Logical Fallacies

Strawman Argument: The hosts imply that those who argue consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy wish to “enjoy the pleasure that they want to enjoy without taking responsibility for whatever consequences.” This is a misrepresentation of the argument, which typically centers on bodily autonomy and the right to make decisions about one’s own body.

False Dichotomy: The content suggests that if the unborn is a human being, then “no justification for abortion is adequate.” This presents a false dichotomy by implying that either the fetus is a human being with full rights from conception, or abortion is completely unjustifiable, ignoring the nuanced positions and ethical considerations surrounding the issue.

Appeal to Consequences: The argument that allowing abortion because “sex produces babies” and “babies belong in the womb” appeals to the natural consequences of sex without addressing the ethical considerations of bodily autonomy and personal choice.

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias: The hosts consistently frame the discussion to support their pre-existing belief that abortion is morally wrong. This is evident in their selective use of analogies and dismissal of counterarguments without thorough consideration.

Moral Certainty Bias: The content reflects a strong conviction in the moral correctness of their position, which may lead to an underestimation of the validity of opposing viewpoints. This bias can result in the oversimplification of complex ethical issues.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Unsubstantiated Claim: The statement “sex produces babies. And babies belong in the womb” is presented as a natural and unchangeable truth without addressing the complexities of reproductive rights and individual choice.

Dubious Claim: The hosts claim that the right to refuse argument is essentially a “right to kill argument.” This is a misleading simplification that fails to engage with the ethical considerations of bodily autonomy and the right to make decisions about one’s own health and body.

Need for Substantiation

All claims, especially those with significant ethical implications, require robust evidence and logical support. The obligation to substantiate claims ensures that arguments are based on more than personal beliefs and are defensible in broader ethical and logical contexts.

Testing Alleged Promises

To test the promises or outcomes related to the claim that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, one could:

1. Empirical Research: Conduct studies to explore the psychological and physical impact of pregnancy on individuals who did not intend to conceive.
2. Legal Analysis: Examine legal cases and precedents that address the issue of consent and bodily autonomy in the context of unintended pregnancies.
3. Ethical Debates: Engage in structured debates and discussions that include a variety of perspectives to critically assess the moral and ethical dimensions of the issue.

Mapping Beliefs to Evidence

It is essential to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. Strong beliefs should be supported by strong evidence, and where evidence is lacking or inconclusive, beliefs should be held tentatively. This approach fosters intellectual honesty and openness to revising one’s views in light of new evidence or stronger arguments.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.