Philosophy In Utero

The prolife gambling argument usually goes something like this: "Saying consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy is like saying consent to gambling isn't consent to losing." It is usually used to show a scenario where the consequences are inherent to the action taken and that it would be silly to say you wanted to gamble and then act surprised when you lose. This argument is flawed. Gambling isn't gambling without losing. Sex is sex without pregnancy. Gambling is literally done with losing being both an intended and desired outcome. Lest, why gamble? If your goal was just to get money and never lose, you might as well have just robbed someone. Or gotten a job. The goal of gambling is having the fear of losing to keep you on edge and get you a thrill. That's the point of it. It sucks to lose, but without loss, gambling wouldn't be very much of a high. It wouldn't be fun. And it would be something else entirely. That is not the same case with sex. One c

First, I want to start off with the inference of the prolife community that a zygote is it's own organism.  Sentiments such as: "Life begins at conception." "It's a human being." The offense they take when someone states that a zef is a clump of cells. The lack of concern over gametes. The lack of concern for the death of say, a kidney, if you were to remove it from your body and let it sit on a table and die. The counter argument to "my body, my choice" being "not your body and not your choice." All of these notions infer that they mark a difference between cellular life and organismic life and that conception is the catalyst for that change. That conception confers a change from cellular life to it now being an organism. This also infers a lack of understanding the process of gestation and the lack of belief that becoming your own organism is a process rather than a definitive point in time, such as conception (which I would point out c

 “Black lives matter!” “Yeah but, abortion. So I guess not all lives, huh?” This is degrading. And even if we grant that it’s somehow true, interjecting it harms the mentality of the BLM movement.  So let’s start with that: they interject an issue that is not synonymous with what BLM is about. BLM is about police brutality and it’s excessive, discriminatory use against POC. Abortions are neither about police brutality nor is one single woman having an abortion being excessive about it. Next, it distracts from the real issue at hand. Now you aren’t thinking about the atrocities that happen to black people by police, you are thinking about “hmm is this true?” It doesn’t really matter if you believe abortion is of equal footing as police brutality or not. The thing is, this isn’t about abortion. This is not an appropriate subject to bring up because by distracting from their issue, you belittle the magnitude of the human rights violation that has occurred to the black community. Which, if