I have another pro-abort gem for you: “Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.”
What kind of logic is that? Everyone knows that sex can lead to pregnancy. How can someone consent to the act and think that it isn’t consent to the consequences? This statement is more proof of how pro-aborts do not think that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Its failed logic, but then pro-abort logic usually is.
Apply that logic to other scenarios, and you can see how ludicrous it is:
“Consent to eating sweets is not consent to gain weight.”
“Consent to smoking is not consent to develop lung cancer.”
“Consent to tanning is not consent to develop skin cancer.”
“Consent to drinking alcohol is not consent to liver damage.”
“Consent to abusing drugs is not consent to brain damage.”
Anyone presented with the above would agree that each of these actions could result in the corresponding consequence. So why is sexual relations exempt?
Question for pro-aborts: Does this also mean that consent to sex makes someone exempt from the consequence of contracting a STD?
Doesn’t make sense does it? Neither does your argument about pregnancy.