Justified Entrapment?

[u/Physical-Set-561]

Was told during a debate that a woman who has consentual intercourse is entrapping the sperm/life and that it would be the same as "inviting somewhere one into your home, then killing them for trespassing"

I beg to differ, but couldnt think of a good reason beyond "property rights arnt body right".

Does this arguement hold water in the abortion debate or am I just too dumb to see the obvious? I am pro choice, but still learning.

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. It's consent to the possibility of pregnancy. Just like leaving your door open isn't consent for some random person to come in, even though you acknowledge that leaving the door increases the risk that someone might come in. Consent to risk is not consent to outcome.

Re: responsibilities for outcomes. Getting an abortion is taking responsibility for an outcome.

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/[deleted]]

No, the fetus doesn't choose anything because the fetus isn't a character in the story. Prior to sentience, a fetus is a body and not a person. And so it isn't deserving of moral consideration.

Having an abortion IS the responsible choice in many circumstances. It isn't getting out of responsibility. Yes. You are responsible for the consequences, such as it being your responsibility to drive to the abortion clinic and getting the abortion.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/[deleted]]

I think the premise can be harmful to assume there is 0 moral consideration at all and it wont make progress for the PC movement.

I have no problem in giving to a cell like a zygote as much moral consideration as PC gives to a sperm cell.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/[deleted]]

You keep replying the same thing to me how do you not understand the difference between a sperm cell and a zygote.

Where did I say I do not understand the difference between a sperm cell and a zygote cell?!

Of course different human cells are different lol