I like the car riding into traffic analogy. If your behavior in regards to an unintended outcome is the same as someone who intended that outcome, then I think we can say you consented to the consequences. So both the people riding a bike into oncoming traffic have consented to the outcome of likely injury, even though one was trying to get injured and the other was not.
I would say the same holds true for pregnancy. If the person's actions who didn't want pregnancy are indistinguishable from the person who did want pregnancy, then we can say they were consenting even though it was not the desired result.
But how about if this person was modifying their behavior to reduce risk? What if the bicyclist was on the sidewalk and the car swerved off the road? What if the woman was on oral contraception and became pregnant anyway?
(BTW, I'm pro-life and these are not deeply held beliefs or anything. I just think the topic is interesting. The abortion argument is always couched in personhood, so it's morbidly fascinating to explore the ethics from another angle)
I would say the same holds true for pregnancy. If the person's actions who didn't want pregnancy are indistinguishable from the person who did want pregnancy, then we can say they were consenting even though it was not the desired result.
But how about if this person was modifying their behavior to reduce risk? What if the bicyclist was on the sidewalk and the car swerved off the road? What if the woman was on oral contraception and became pregnant anyway?
(BTW, I'm pro-life and these are not deeply held beliefs or anything. I just think the topic is interesting. The abortion argument is always couched in personhood, so it's morbidly fascinating to explore the ethics from another angle)
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.