If we didn't need to reproduce, we would have sex. Pleasure is making you want to have sex so reproduction can happen. Even Animals have Pleasurable sex to make them reproduce so extinction does not happen. But what about Gay or Lesbian Sex? It is because if they ever come in contact with the other gender pregnancy can happen. However as a species we have technology to stop reproduction happening eg condoms but it doesnt take away the purpose
Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. Whether contraception on both party's behalf is involved or not, there is still a chance that pregnancy will occur. Every time a loving couple has sex they recognise this risk. Every time two complete strangers have sex, they should also recognise this risk. Simply getting pregnant and acting shocked is ridiculous. Penetrative sexual intercourse involving a male and a female can biologically result in the conception of a child. Abortion is not an acceptable method of contraception. Bringing to full term an unwanted child and adopting it out is also an unacceptable method of contraception. Contraception needs to take place before the conscious decision to have sex is made. One needs to weigh up the pros and cons of all associated risks. Unwanted pregnancy is one such risk.
Men and women both possess the ability to not have sex regardless of how aroused they are. If contraception is unavailable, they need to exercise this ability. Consent to sex IS consent to pregnancy in 100% of cases.
When people learn about sex, they also learn about pregnancy. They learn that the two go hand-in-hand and while people may not mean to become pregnant, they still have sex and become pregnant. Consenting to sex and not accepting pregnancy as a probable risk is like eating fast food and not expecting to gain weight. Of course, not all people that eat at McDonalds become fat, but if you eat there consistently, there is a high risk of becoming obese. Same with sex and pregnancy. People may say, "Oh, it'll never happen to me", but it does. Consenting to sex but not consenting to pregnancy is like wanting a car but not willing to pay off the fees associated with it. Sex is an decision we make, and like all decisions, has positive and negative consequences. Doing a decision means accepting all the possible outcomes of said decision.
It's consent to pregnancy when you're old enough to comprehend that every time you have sex, there is the possibility of creating a child.
It's also consent when you know this, contraceptives are readily available to you, and yet you still choose to take the risk.
It's not rocket science. You can't just come up and say that you had no idea this could happen if pregnancy occurs. When you engage in an action, you are accepting the possible consequences.
One of the very real, very common consequences of sex is pregnancy. If you can't deal with the possibility of that consequence, then don't have sex.
Sex is for the creation of a child. Sex feels good to give incentive to create a child. Deciding to have sex carries the risk of getting pregnant, ergo, you acknowledge you may get pregnant regardless of any contraception or condom. This is why only individuals ready to have a child are truly prepared enough for sex.
If a female, regardless of age, is willing to have sex she should be ready to deal with the possible consequences of her actions. Acceptable ways of dealing with these consequences does not include morning-after pills or abortion. Couples need to be aware that no form of contraception is 100% effective and in the event that it does fail, they will be responsible for raising a child.
As a whole, society recognizes that sex is a normal part of a relationship between a loving couple. And as a healthy part of a relationship, when two people have sex the intent and purpose can be for mutual enjoyment and emotional bonding. Pregnancy is not the intent nor is it consented to in this situation. If sex were really only about procreation, then we would not allow men to get vasectomies, birth control would be illegal, and sex by menopausal women would be forbidden. Society has set the standard that sex can be for the enjoyment of the two participating, and as such sex and consent to pregnancy are not the same thing.
When you consent to sex, you consent to one specific person putting one of his/her body parts in a specific place inside your body. That person's siblings, friends, and born children do not get to put their body parts inside your body on the basis of that consent - each one has to get specific consent for herself/himself. Want to claim a zygote/embryo/fetus is a unique person? It, too, will have to get specific consent. The person who gets consent to put one of his/her body parts in one specific place in your body has to get other specific consent to put it in some other specific place in your body. He/she gets specific consent for a relatively short time period, and not several months, so the zygote/embryo/fetus has to get specific consent for a period of several months. Moreover, in childbirth, a fetus penetrates the vagina or is removed by caesarian surgery. If the woman did not consent specifically to pregnancy and childbirth and the law banned abortion, her pregnancy would meet the standards of a legal definition of a threat of rape (penetration of the vagina by body parts by force without consent) or aggravated sexual assault (using a deadly weapon, a knife, to cut into a sex organ by force without consent). The law allows the use of deadly force if necessary to prevent/stop a threat of rape or sexual assault.
Consent to sex is consent to sex-nothing else. If the possibility of something happening when you consent to doing something else automatically means you consent to the possibility of any of the ridiculously vast possibilities that could occur after then the door for excusing all sorts of unwanted consequences. It's ridiculous and a poor argument.
Contraceptives exist to prevent pregnancy. It is true that contraceptives are not an error proof method of avoiding pregnancy, however, the use of them greatly decreases the odds of getting pregnant. So the only way to ensure one does not get pregnant is to not have sex. So if one has sex it is a possibility that they could become pregnant or get an individual pregnant, but having sex is not a blatant consent to pregnancy.
Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy. I know there are the people out there who think it's an obligation to force women to carry a baby to term if a mistake is made (contraception isn't error-proof.)
The whole 'you shouldn't have had sex if you didn't want to get pregnant' is just what the Anti-Choicers will use to silence those who are against them. They make remarks such as 'shouldn't have spread your legs', 'should have kept it in your pants', 'should have waited until marriage like a good girl' and statements like are all sexist, backwards thoughts.
If a man is allowed to go out and have sex for pleasure, why is a woman not allowed to?
Women deserve sexual health the same as men do. I don't just refer to the ability to get regularly screened for STIs and the like. I am also referring to regular access to safe and healthy sex that does not instill in a person a fear of lifetime commitment for which a person is not prepared or willing to endure. Sexual health is, or can be, a big part of an individual's personal health, and we shouldn't deny people with uteri that because their uterus might get something in it if they pursue sexual health.
Only a woman would say yes because they can financially benefit from the situation for decades. This is why men should only allow women to give them oral or anal sex until marriage. You can never trust a female to do the right thing for everyone involved. She will only think of her self and her wants and needs.
If you walk through a burglary-riddled part of town, does that mean you're asking to get mugged? Or course not. If you enter a neighborhood you know has high rates of robbery and get robbed, that does not mean it's your fault you got robbed--you're just unlucky. Even if you take precaution and keep pepper spray on you you can still get your purse stolen. Consent to entering a dangerous part of town does not equal consent to get robbed. Likewise, consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Knowledge that a thing could happen does not equate permission for that thing to happen. "Hey criminals! I am voulnerable to robbery therefore I allow you to rob me!" Ridiculous.
Here's my analogy:
Sex = lit match
Undetonated dynamite = uterus
Lit fuse = pregnancy
Every fertile female has a case of dynamite by her side. Some women and couples intend to detonate this dynamite and experience the fireworks (child). Some women/couples don't want to experience the fireworks display or they aren't ready to experience it yet. So what should they do if they want to light a match (for instance, in order to light some birthday candles) without exploding the dynamite? Well, they can take extreme safety precautions to keep the fuse from becoming lit, such as encasing the dynamite in a fireproof material. However, even after being responsible with their dynamite, there is still always the slight risk of the fuse being lit. This does not mean the female shouldn't be allowed to use fire ever in her life. If the fuse is lit, there is an interval of time where she can extinguish the fuse and prevent the dynamite from exploding. If she was responsible with her use of fire and keeping her dynamite out of fire's way to the best of her abilities, there's no reason why she shouldn't be able to put out that fuse.
I realize that human life is not as simple as fireworks, and from the point of fertilization, what's been created technically IS a human being (see https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html ). But at this point, said human being is threatening severe harm on the mother (the symptoms of pregnancy fit the definition of severe injury or harm). The victim (mother) may have attempted retreat through non-lethal means of contraception--if these fail she has the right to self-defense against the threat of severe harm.
Basically, because of advances in technology, consent to sex does not mean to consent to pregnancy. At the most it means consent to RISK of pregnancy, but there are risks involved in every decision we take. We can't avoid making decisions.
Women need to realize that, if they do choose to continue with pregnancy, since they have legal right to do so, it isn't ethical behavior, when the guy hasn't provided consent for pregnancy. If the woman, can raise the child by herself without any support from the man, then there's the issue of child not knowing the benefit of a father in a family, possibly leading to child exhibiting insecure behavior, on the other hand, if woman chooses to continue pregnancy, even when she's unable to support child on her own, then giving the child up for adoption, atleast provides the child with a true chance at normal life & makes the woman a mom, who's a selfless person.