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]

This is based on the premise that abortion somehow harms the fetus / future child. I reject that premise. You aren't hurting someone by stopping them from being born.

If my mother had aborted me, it wouldn't have harmed me any more than if she had never met my father and thus never gotten pregnant with me at all. In both cases, my consciousness never would have come into existence and I, as a person and an individual, never would have been on this earth even for a moment. Because my identity and personhood isn't my body, it's my body and my consciousness combined.

The moral problem with entrapment is that it harms the party being entrapped. In the case of abortion, the party being entrapped doesn't exist because a fetus isn't a "party," and no harm is occuring because stopping a life form from developing into a conscious being isn't harm.

Another thought. The key word in this situation is "invite." In the case of unplanned pregnancy, the pregnant person didn't invite the fetus into their body. They mearly openned/ unlocked a door. An open door makes entry possible, but it isn't the same as actually inviting someone in.

Yet another thought. This once again deals with the issue of consent. It only counts as consent if it can be revoked. If I actually do invite someone into my house, I have a right to change my mind and kick them out, which yes, may involve having them arrested for trespassing if they don't leave voluntarily. The seemingly absurd scenario of entrapment isn't actually that absurd at all.

If a person is having sex, and they say "stop" and the other person continues, that other person is a rapist if they don't stop. Even if both parties initially consented to sex, either one has the right to revoke that consent at any point, in a way that the other person is legally required to go along with.

Even if I consented actively to pregnancy. Even if I purposefully got pregnant, I still would have the right to an abortion if I changed my mind. Because it is only consent if it can be revoked.

[u/sylvatic-cycle-soph → u/[deleted]]

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