deadbeat dads and abortion advocates alike love this argument! "i consented to sex, i ain't consent to a child."

consider this:

a man is in court for a hearing on child support arrears. the judge asks him to explain why he has failed to pay child support for the past 15 months. the man, pumped up and overconfident because of a low iq post he read on reddit.com, replies:

your honor, sir, two years ago, i consented to sex with that woman, who claimed to be on birth control. but i absolutely did not consent to any children, and i even told that her beforehand. she either lied about being on birth control or maybe you need to go after pharmaceuticals for selling defective birth control and ask them to pay the bills, not me. i had no control over the sperm swimming up her fallopian tube and penetrating her egg. the sperm could've turned left, but it decided to go right, where the egg was. that was pure biology. the embryo also implanted itself into the woman's uterus without my consent, so you can't blame it on me because i had no control over that biological process either. besides, her body, her problem. if she wanted it, she should take care of it herself. i told her that. she had nine months to get an abortion. now asking me to provide for a child i did not consent to is torture and causes me great suffering. i would no longer have enough money to do the things i'd like to do. child support is theft, a violation of my property rights, which the united nations in a statement said are fundamental.

the judge laughs at the man and then proceeds to sentence him to jail.

now if you, like the judge, believe that the man made terrible arguments, well that's because he did. unfortunately, this is what passes as a "serious" argument from abortion advocates.

could you imagine if people made similar "lack of consent to consequences" arguments in other scenarios?

"i consented to drinking, not to swerving off the road and killing two kids during my drive home."

"i consented to the drug trade, i didn't consent to her overdosing."

"i consented to smoking cigarettes, not to burning forests."

"i only consented to drinking whiskey and playing black jack. i did not consent to any gambling debt."

you get the point!

but let's return to consequences the deadbeat dad has to deal with. what happened here is that he failed to meet his obligations to provide for his child and was consequently sent to jail. whether or not he consented to a child is irrelevant here. what is relevant in this example is that 1) the child is entitled to sustenance (e.g., nutrition, shelter, clothing) from its parents, 2) the man, by bringing about the child into existence, is the biological father of the child, and now has obligations and duties towards the child, 3) the law correctly puts the interest of the child ahead of the man to ensure that the child receives the appropriate care that it is entitled to, and 4) whether or not the man appreciates the consequences of his actions (or consents to them) does not absolve him of the obligations and duties he has now incurred as a result of his actions. furthermore, numerous states put the interest of the child ahead of the parents even if the child resulted from either parent being raped, which shows that consent, before and after the fact, has little to no relevance on whether a child is entitled to care from its parents.

so how should one respond the next time they come across an abortion advocate complaining about how the government is forcing women to take care of their unborn children without their consent? simply point out that they're using the deadbeat dad argument. we can replace "man," "father," "his," "him," and "he" in 1) to 4) above with "woman," "mother," "her," "her," and "she," respectively. if the discussion is at the street level, simply tell them "tough luck. the child exists now, so you have to care for the baby. don't be a deadbeat, and don't forget to take your supplements!"

in what other situations does the law put the interests of children ahead of their parents, disregarding the parents' wishes, desires, and explicit consent? here are a few examples. i can evict anyone who's in my house without my explicit consent, yet i can't kick out my minor children, otherwise i'd get sent to jail for child abandonment. i'm not obligated to feed any stranger i see, yet if i let my children starve, i'd get sent to jail for child neglect and murder. i can choose to live in filth for the rest of my life, yet if i left my children in such squalid conditions, i'd get sent to jail.

ever heard an abortion advocate claim that the unborn child is raping the mother by using her body without her consent? of course you have. the proper way to respond to such an absurd argument is to point out that while it's true that almost no one is allowed to use the mother's body without her consent, her child is allowed to do so because that's the only place he can be at those early stages of development. it's the difference between a home intruder and your small child in your home that you're not allowed to kick out. abortion advocates say that the only time the unborn child is allowed to be in the mother's womb is if she consents to it, and that she should be allowed to deny her child this essential form of care if she chooses otherwise. that, of course, is like saying "my parents consented to providing me with ample food, keeping a roof over my head, and sending me to school, but i don't think it should be illegal for other parents to deny their children of the same if they don't consent to it." that sounds absurd, but as we will soon see, it's the most coherent position for an abortion advocate to take.

the reality is that children do not need the explicit consent of their parents to receive the appropriate care that they are entitled to, and we have laws in place to safeguard their rights and interests should the parents refuse. the united nations convention on the rights of the child, an international treaty that highlights the natural rights that all children have, states that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," and that "in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." moreover, the state should "ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her." interestingly, even joke organizations like the united nations recognize the child in the womb.

abortion advocates say that being pregnant does not make you a parent; you only become a parent once you tacitly consent to it by taking the child home after birth. and since you are not yet a parent, you do not have any obligations or duties to the unborn child. this account of becoming a parent, if true, raises important questions. first, why is it that pregnant women are asked "who's the father?" and not "who will be the father?" as christopher kaczor points out in the book "abortion rights: for and against," the question presupposes that there is a father, and if there is a father, there is a child, and if there's a child, there's also a mother. but you see, according to abortion advocates, we are actually wrong to presuppose that because the notion of biological parents is not only outdated, but it is actually considered to be a thoughtcrime. the more accurate term to use is biological progenitors, not biological parents, because one must first consent to becoming a parent. however, assuming that this is true, this leads to the next question: why do the biological progenitors of the child even have the right to take the child home after birth? as francis beckwith puts it, if the biological progenitors do have a right to take their child home, then it is because there is already a special relationship that was created without anyone's explicit consent:

[W]hy would those two people—the biological progenitors of the child—even have the initial right to “assume responsibility” of the child and bring it home? Why couldn’t the hospital, the state, or a group of philosopher kings simply assign that child to what they judge are the most suitable parents? Precisely whose rights would be violated in such a scenario? The child’s, the biological progenitors? After all, the child’s not been “given rights”, and the parents have not “assumed responsibility." Who the heck is really in charge then?… If it’s the child’s biological progenitors who have the right to “assume responsibility,” then they already have a special relationship to that child to which they did not consent. And when precisely did the other party in the contract, the child, consent (implicitly or explicitly) to this arrangement? Consider the billions of unsuspecting infants who over the centuries are brought home and become members of families that speak a language, live under a political regime, are shaped by inherited cultural practices, and are taught that responsibility over another requires explicit or implicit consent. Are we to believe that this reality contravenes justice because the infants’ agreement to the contingent conditions of their formation had not been secured?

similarly, stephen schwarz points out in his book "the moral question of abortion" that only the natural parents can put their child up for adoption and transfer the rights and obligations to the child to another party (forgive him for not using the correct term, biological progenitors; he's from an earlier era):

Both the rights and the duties of natural parents toward their children come clearly into focus when the process of adoption is considered. Adoption is a legal transfer of rights and obligations to a new party. Only the natural mother can do this (or possibly the father). And she can do this because she is the mother. One can only give over what one already has. What is given over in adoption is precisely the relationship of obligations to the child (and the rights corresponding to them) stemming from the fact of conceiving the child. The woman can give her child for adoption because it is her child: her responsibility to sustain.

to rephrase beckwith, why is it that only the biological progenitors are allowed to transfer the rights and obligations to the child to a new party? why can't the government instead take the newborns and distribute them to families that are best capable of raising them? is it because the newborns belong to the biological progenitors and are theirs and only they can put their child up for adoption? but this implies that schwarz is correct when he says that one can only give over what one already has. so if the biological progenitors have natural rights to their children, then it follows that they have natural obligations to them as well. these natural obligations to one's children are why both the deadbeat progenitor and the abortion advocate find themselves in a real predicament.

if we are wrong to assume that biological progenitors have natural rights and obligations to their children, then all of our laws need to be overhauled to account for this new consent-based parenting model. how would the laws change? for example, how would the process of revoking consent work? surely consent can be revoked. can i simply state "i do not consent" and then be free to neglect my (former) children and avoid all criminal charges of neglect? can i toss my former children in the dumpster or abandon them in the woods? or do i have to return them at the hospital, much like how i can return the sweater i purchased at the department store? or must i have to endure lengthy legal proceedings in order to formally abdicate my responsibilities to my children in the form of adoption, assuming there is even a family that is willing to adopt my ten-year-old and twelve-year-old children? and what if we can't find someone else to adopt my former children, am i still responsible for their care until we do? if the answers to those last two question are yes, then why do abortion advocates believe a pregnant woman can instantly abdicate the same responsibilities to her unborn child and kill him without having to find a proper replacement guardian and waiting until those rights and obligations are legally transferred? do they believe pregnant women are special and should be given privileges that no other parents have?

most abortion advocates would prefer to treat the mother/unborn child relationship as a case of a good samaritan rather than one that entails obligations and duties. they claim that what really matters is consent (unless of course it's the case of the deadbeat dad, and in which that case most resort to mental gymnastics). and conveniently for them, they say the consent process starts at birth (which may explain why women who undergo in vitro fertilization may still be able to procure abortions despite initially having consented to the implantation, or how women who were first enthusiastic about being pregnant can still change their minds and procure abortions). but there is no explanation as to why this ought to be. why can't we engage in a little thoughtcrime and instead say that the process to revoke consent starts at birth, when its safe to transfer the child to another party?

the few serious abortion advocates, such as the ones whose careers actually depend on them being correct, concede that parents have obligations and duties to their children, and those same obligations and duties would apply to their unborn children as well. for example, ronald dworkin, one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th century, and an abortion advocate himself, conceded that if unborn children were persons under the law, then women would have the same obligations and duties to their unborn children as they have to their born children, and that they cannot simply invoke their rights to their body to absolve themselves of those obligations and duties:

If the fetus is protected by [the “equal protection of the laws”] clause, then of course a state is entitled to protect its life in the same way it protects the lives of other people under its care, and for that reason is entitled to say that a woman’s right to control the use of her body for procreation ends, at least when her health is not at stake, when pregnancy begins.

...

But if a woman is well aware of the physical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and voluntarily has sexual intercourse knowing that she risks becoming pregnant, a state that permits her or her doctor to abort her fetus has no compelling justification for doing so if the fetus is entitled to equal protection of the laws. For a state fails to show equal concern for both mother and fetus when it allows the mother to regain the freedom of her body at the expense of the fetus’s life.

...

And in any case parents are invariably made an exception to the general doctrine under which people are not required to save others. Parents have a legal duty to care for their children, and if a fetus is a constitutional person from conception a state would not be justified in discriminating between fetuses and infants. If it did not permit killing infants or abandoning them in circumstances in which they would inevitably die, it could not permit abortion either. The physical and emotional and economic burdens of pregnancy are intense, of course, but so are the parallel burdens of parenthood.

regardless of one's view of natural rights and obligations to one's children, requiring the deadbeat dad to pay child support poses a serious problem for any account of obligations and duties based on consent. an abortion advocate usually responds to the case of the deadbeat dad in three ways.

first, they bite the bullet and claim that, contrary to dworkin, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights." it should not be surprising that the same people who advocate for allowing mothers to kill their children in the womb have no qualms with child neglect and child abandonment. though this position can be considered psychopathic, it is actually the most logically consistent position for an abortion advocate to take. according to this view, there should not be any laws against neglecting children or laws mandating that parents provide their children with nutrition, shelter, child support payments, clothing, affection, etc. if parents aren't obligated to feed even their born children, then it naturally follows that women aren't obligated to sustain the lives of their unborn children. the values of the pro-lifer and this type of abortion advocate are too far apart and they should both cease wasting their time arguing with each other. however, since the abortion advocate has exposed his depravity for the world to see, the pro-lifer can take this as a win.

others, who are more self-conscious about being psychopaths, claim that society should pick up the slack instead, which is only slightly less outlandish. for example, why should the rest of society foot the bills of a man who fathered 25 children with 18 different women? what happened to personal responsibility? why is it that parents don't have obligations and duties towards their own children, but that strangers have obligations and duties to other people's children? what explains these obligations and duties? and just how far do these obligations and duties extend to? for example, are the people of omaha, nebraska responsible for feeding and clothing the children of somalia? why or why not? and what is the abortion advocate's response if a society simply does not consent to such an arrangement and refuses to be a substitute for irresponsible deadbeats? do they believe those children should then go without basic necessities, and starve to death? i have yet to receive a satisfying answer from an abortion advocate on these points.

the last option available to the abortion advocate is to claim that children are indeed entitled to sustenance such as food, shelter, clothing, and child support payments from their parents, but they're not entitled to nourishment in the mother's womb. the abortion advocate is essentially attempting an ad hoc rescue; however, they can't adequately explain why the state is justified in violating one or two fundamental rights (property and liberty, as is the case with jailed deadbeat dads) without the parent's explicit consent in the interest of the child but not another (bodily autonomy, however poorly defined it is). in order to justify it—if they ever do (most of the time they don't, they just simply reiterate lazy slogans like "it's my body, it's different!" without any argumentation)—they'll try to claim that nine months of pregnancy is more burdensome than paying child support for 18 years (it's actually often times longer) or parenting, but even this is not convincing. to quote dworkin again, "the physical and emotional and economic burdens of pregnancy are intense, of course, but so are the parallel burdens of parenthood." moreover, you're not allowed to kill people simply because they are a burden.

discounting the psychopath, did you notice how the abortion advocate moved the goalposts upon realization that consent is not actually relevant to the debate? the arguments moved from consent on to either who ought to foot the bills for the children (without their consent, of course) or whether the nourishment in the womb is sustenance that a child is entitled to. this is why one should focus the arguments on obligations and duties instead of getting tangled up over silly arguments such as whether consent to x is consent to y. such arguments are red herrings. the abortion advocate would much rather argue over trivial matters than try to refute the central point that abortions objectively kill human beings, which is something that not even abortionists deny. the case of the deadbeat dad complaining about child support payments is the most lucid and analogous example that demonstrates how insignificant consent is. even comedians that support abortion concede that this is a powerful argument!