Thread by @StupidRock

Here’s another little thread on misconceptions pro-choice people seem to have about pro-life arguments.

Pro-life person: consent does not apply to pregnancy for x, y, z reasons. For this reason, abortion cannot be argued for on the basis of revocation of consent.
1/

Pro-choice person’s response may include: calling you a literal rape apologist, asserting #Consentalwaysapplies, and showing of outrage and anger for the idea of consent not applying to a situation it logically cannot apply to.
2/

If I am being generous, I think the anger comes from a place of fundamental misunderstanding.
Pro-life people are NOT saying:
1. Consent does not apply to all situations
2. Therefore in those situations, no protection or violation of rights can occur
3/

They are merely saying:
1. This is the definition of consent
2. Consent cannot logically apply to pregnancy
3. Abortion must be argued for on a basis other than revocation of consent
That is literally it.
We are not saying women’s bodies are property.
4/

We are not saying people have a right to use other people’s bodies whenever they want for whatever reason for however long.
Consent is not a god. It does not apply to every single act and situation. (see definition below)
5/

Consent is not a huge umbrella under which all agreements and assents and choices fall under. With a proper understanding of consent, it becomes obvious the concept does not apply to the condition of pregnancy.
Instead of understanding
6/

how consent can't logically apply to pregnancy, therefore abortion can't be argued as a revocation of consent, people get mad at the underlying fact that consent doesn't apply to everything, because they mistakenly believe consent MUST apply for protection of rights.
7/

And that is just not true.

Perhaps instead of getting mad at a biology and a proper understanding of consent, people should re-evaluate their underlying assumptions about how rights are protected and what constitutes a violation of rights.
8/

Is consent *really* the only thing which matters in determining if a violation of rights has happened? Is consent really the main way or only way to protect yourself and your rights?
9/

Simple definition:
“Consent is a three-place transaction in which consent to do something—φ—is always given to another party or agent, to whom we will refer as B.”
The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice, Franklin Miller and Alan Wertheimer, 2009, pg 5
10/

Additional links for those with open minds to understand how consent cannot apply to the biological process of pregnancy:
humandefense.com/consent-to-sex…
elizabethprolife.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/bod…
mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/17_3_1.pdf
11/11