The Instigator
Chuz-Life
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
xxx00
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Consent to Sex is an Implied Consent to Pregnancy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Chuz-Life
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,389 times Debate No: 27763
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

Chuz-Life

Pro

As the title suggests. This is a debate about whether or not an "assumption of risk" for pregnancy in an act of sexual intercourse between two consenting adults amounts to "implied consent" for the pregnancy itself.

In short; "Consent to sex is Consent to Pregnancy"

This argument assumes

1. That the sexual intercourse was consensual
2. That the parties involved were of sound mind and of legal age
3. That that the risk (for pregnancy) is actually realized.
4. That there is NO legal or moral expectation that the pregnancy must be maintained. ONLY that it was 'impliedly' consented to.


Reference:
Assumption of Risk
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Implied Consent
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I will take the Pro side and argue that an act of consensual sex does amount to 'implied consent' for a pregnancy and my opponent (Con) will argues against that conclusion.
xxx00

Con

why do you think that "Consent to sex is Consent to Pregnancy"?
Debate Round No. 1
Chuz-Life

Pro

Con asked; why do you think that "Consent to sex is Consent to Pregnancy"?

Con, as I was hoping for a more considerate opponent (one that would help me to actually explore this issue and to present an abundance of information from both sides to those who follow along and hopefully vote) Regardless, Thanks for accepting my challenge.

I will present my arguments in the hopes that I will receive a little more from my opponent that a question of "why I think" things.

To answer Con's question using the same vernacular that he did;

1. "I think" that an act of consensual intercourse between two adults is an "assumption of risk" on their part (for pregnancy) because sexual intercourse is without exception the greatest known leading cause for pregnancy for human beings. Every over the counter birth control we have comes with the warning that they are not 100% effective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy. This assumption of risk by both individuals implies a known consent for the pregnancy because the risks for pregnancy were known (or should have been known) and the parties chose to gamble with that as a possible consequence of their actions.

In the opening challenge, I posted: "I will take the Pro side and argue that an act of consensual sex does amount to 'implied consent' for a pregnancy and my opponent (Con) will argue against that conclusion."

I look forward to Con's counter arguments in the negative.
xxx00

Con

xxx00 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Chuz-Life

Pro

As Con has now forfeited R2, I am at a point where I am not sure if I should continue unabated or to save some information in reserve so that I can debate this subject with another opponent in the future. This is surprisingly challenging, not having an opponent's remarks to use as a foil for my own views. I shall instead expound on my previous observations in the hopes that debates and discussions in the future will benefit from this as a reference.

In round one, I posited; "an act of consensual intercourse between two adults is an "assumption of risk" on their part (for pregnancy) because sexual intercourse is without exception the greatest known leading cause for pregnancy for human beings" and everyone knows (or should know) that they are taking that risk when they engage in sexual intercourse.

Just as a person is held responsible when they assume risks that affect others by playing with fire, loaded guns or recklessly operating a vehicle; a person who knowingly assumes the risks for pregnancy is also directly responsible for the results of their actions when and if the risk they took is realized. This is particularly important when addressing the issue of child support.

I would like to ask my opponent, PRO; "Who is responsible for a pregnancy; If it is not the couple who 'assumed the risks' for the pregnancy and engaged in an act that causes it?"

I completely understand the counter argument that a person who tries to prevent a pregnancy by using birth control has expressed no want for a pregnancy to occur. Indeed, they have tried to avoid it. However, by their own actions in engaging in the only activity that naturally leads to pregnancy, they have compromised the integrity of their own decision. We all know that "actions can speak louder than words."

Pregnancy is a "reasonable" expectation or consequence of having sex.

In this example from an online legal dictionary[1], the point is very well illustrated;

"Implied consent is never made clear. Rather, it occurs when a defendant relies on a plaintiff’s actions or words or the circumstances of the situation in order to determine whether consent exists.

For example, suppose that the plaintiff played football for his college team. During a game, he was tackled by an opponent and thrown to the ground, breaking his leg. The injured plaintiff sues the player who tackled him. In this case, the defendant is likely to argue that the plaintiff consented to the injury. Even if the injured plaintiff never signed a consent form, he understood that one risk involved in playing tackle football is the risk of broken bones resulting from being tackled.

A football player (like a person who tries to avoid pregnancy) avails him or herself of all the protective equipment they can use to avoid injuries. Helmets, pads, gloves, etc would seem to indicate that they are not consenting to an injury when they "assume the risks" of the game. However, as you can see by the example given... They do IMPLY their consent by engaging in the activity despite the risks.

xxx00

Con

xxx00 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Chuz-Life

Pro

My thanks to Con for his interest in this debate. It is unfortunate that he was not able to bring more to con side of the argument.

My conclusion remains unchanged and (for now) unchallenged. When a couple engages in consensual intercourse, they also imply their consent the any pregnancies (much like the legal/ football player analogy linked too earlier.) It is this 'implied consent' that in my observation, ties a biological father to his responsibilities to (U.S.) 18 years of child support as a child's father. The paternity laws hold him responsible even if he took precautions and tried to AVOID the pregnancy (condoms, etc). He "implied" consent with his actions by "assuming the risks" for the pregnancy.

If you agree that I have made a convincing argument hat an act of consensual sex 'implies consent" for the pregnancy when one is realized, Please vote PRO. Thank you.
xxx00

Con

xxx00 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ayyuba 3 years ago
Ayyuba
If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, driving is consent to an automobile accident, traveling consent to terrorism, and so on. It is my body, my right, and my choice. If I don't want to be pregnant, I don't have to.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Chuz-life: I have seen you profile and your other debates. If you ever need a good debate, I would definitely take the other side on any of the ones you've done.
Posted by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
Thank you for your vote AlwaysMoreThanU!
Posted by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
Thanks to Devilsadvocate for bringing this to my attention:

R3 Link Correction: http://www.rotlaw.com...
Posted by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
Thanks for your vote, Clash.
Posted by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
I sense a forfeited round coming my way.
Posted by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I probaby will re-introduce this debate at a later time. Thanks for your comments. ~chuz
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Very interesting topic. Shame your opponent is not knowledgeable.

Regarding filter settings, your opponent is surprisingly in the 90th percentile. :/

I'm guessing it's because the membership pool is so small - if a guy like this could make 90th percentile, then the filter settings are meaningless.
Posted by BennyW 4 years ago
BennyW
You could try to reintroduce this topic, maybe even choose a specific opponent.
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
I just mean I wanted you to change it so I could accept the debate. Never mind.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Chuz-Lifexxx00Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfieted, so conduct goes to pro. Con forgets to capitalize his sentence, so spelling goes to pro. Con had absolutely no arguments whatsoever, so pro gets convincing arguments. Con has no sources.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Chuz-Lifexxx00Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Pro from the start and the rest if obvious...
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
Chuz-Lifexxx00Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Chuz-Lifexxx00Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit, and Con failed to capitalize the first word in the only sentence he provided to the debate.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Chuz-Lifexxx00Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Chuz-Lifexxx00Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con.