Agreed. Birth control failure does not grant consent. It’s ridiculous.
You haven’t cited any facts yet but I’m happy to provide both the facts and the citations.
For example, the MMR vaccine provides 99% protection (two doses) against measles, while the seasonal flu vaccine can vary from 10% to 60%, depending on how well the flu vaccine matches the flu virus strains that are getting people sick that year.
Fortunately, most vaccines have over 90 to 95% effectiveness.
Some germs can cause asymptomatic infection, which means that the person can have the ‘germ’ in their body, but they don’t have any symptoms of the disease or they have very mild symptoms and don’t really feel sick, according to the Division of Infectious Diseases at UAMS. And if the particular “germ” can be transmitted by coughing or sneezing, for example, then the person may transmit the infection to someone else without knowing it and without having any symptoms themselves.
https://uamshealth.com/healthlibrary2/medicalmyths/diseasecarriers/
Why did small pox kill Native Americans but not European Carriers?
Unless it was rape, yes.
Why is consent relevant? It doesn’t change the innocence of the fetus.
Try following the conversation, I don’t do remedial work anymore for those who can’t.
Consent to sublet your womb isn’t given when one has sex, especially when birth control is used. Birth control certainly implies intent which the presence of a fetus is violating.
Is there a woman of legal age that doesn’t understand the possible consequences of having sex include pregnancy or that no birth control method is 100% effective other than abstinence?
Sorry, I have the ability to follow multiple lines at a time and I was curious how consent factored in to your statement a few days ago:
Is the unborn still not innocent and thus the abortion is “immoral at every level”?
Apparently not since the discussion was about consent.
Why should women not get their choice of outcome?
Life’s not fair and nature doesn’t care what we want.
Agreed. But we are talking about humans and our laws and technology. Why shouldn’t the woman get the outcome she wants - no child in her womb?
She will, in 9 months.
Man talk about the dehumanization of the unborn.
It isn’t taking up residency there and it isn’t subletting.
It is created by the mother in her own womb by the union of her egg with a sperm she lets in.
Every action has potential consequences and anyone that doesn’t understand that pregnancy is a possible consequence of having sex is too young or too stupid to be having it in the first place.
So sex results in pregnancy 100% of the time?
And another consequence is having to choose to have an abortion or not.
Why should she have to carry to term if she doesn’t want to?
Potential consequence. Lucky we have alternatives. Why should she have to carry to term?
She didn’t let it in. And the fetus doesn’t have a right to take her bodily resources or to impose a significantly higher health risk.
Consent is irrelevant in this context.
