Skip to main content

The prolife "gambling" argument is flawed

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 can have sex with 0% chance of ever getting pregnant and it will be just as enjoyable. The fear of getting pregnant is not necessary in order to enjoy the act of sex. It is necessary for the joy of gambling. Else it would be something else.

So yes, consent to gambling is consent to losing.

UPDATE:

Losing is inherent to gambling.

A response I got from this was that pregnancy was inherent to sex. To which I further clarified it as such:

This seems obvious, yes. But I would argue that pregnancy is an inherent risk to insemination. And specifically while fertile.

You can have all kinds of sex, even PIV sex, and never get pregnant.

You can also get pregnant without ever having sex, such as from rape, or IVF.

I think the focus is in the wrong location.

What I mean is that some risks are inherent to the activity, while others are not. In order for gambling to be gambling, that risk has to be present. The risk makes the activity. Without the risk of loss, it isn't gambling or it isn't flipping a coin.

But whether or not there is a risk of pregnancy from sex, sex is still sex. The risk of pregnancy doesn't make the activity.

Comments

  1. Nathan NobisApril 28, 2022 at 5:06 AM

    Thanks for this. Yes, comparing pregnancy (and its possible outcomes) with gambling is a very poor analogy. Your observation that gambling wouldn't be gambling without the potential for loss really gets to the core of the matter!

    I've had two short videos on this recently:

    https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7089393062073470251?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7089196916055442987

    and

    https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7089395529892810027?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7089196916055442987

    ReplyDelete
  2. JahzaraApril 29, 2022 at 12:15 AM

    Nice! Thanks for sharing those. I suppose there is something you could do: steal your money back. However, this would be outside the scope of gambling. Additionally, analogizing abortion to theft is fallacious. Your uterus is always yours. (And the money now no longer is yours.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fetal Awareness

  Fetal Pain This topic is being included in our wiki because it is one of the bigger considerations for those on the fence about where they stand on the issue. The ability for a fetus to feel pain is inconclusive at this point in time. One thing, however, is clear - a pregnant person will also feel pain at the time of onset of labor and delivery. Drugs can only be used so much, and they can wear off prior to or during delivery. She will also experience pain after birth, while she heals and especially if she has a c-section. She will be unable to take narcotic pain meds if she plans on breastfeeding as it can be passed through breastmilk. And breastfeeding itself, can be painful, especially in the beginning. And that is nothing to say of the pains felt throughout pregnancy, including the emotional impact it has on a person who is unable to access abortion and is compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Likewise, the pain of having to give up the child, who by the time of delive...
Post a Comment
Read more

''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' & a rebuttal as to why they actually do

My rebuttal is to this Federalist article: ''Why Mothers Don’t Have The Right To Refuse Babies The Use Of Their Wombs'' This prolife article argues that prenatal humans have to belong somewhere. If not the womb, then where? ''For most pro-choice advocates, the right to abortion hinges on affirming that a pregnant woman has the right to refuse her child residence in her body. But then the question may be asked, if a prenatal human being does not belong in her mother’s womb, where does she belong? The answer? Nowhere.'' You can ask that if you wish. My answer would be that it is irrelevant to the very first statement. ''It is implausible to claim a child does not belong in the place she began to exist and the only place she can survive: in the nurture and care her mother’s body naturally provides. This has been the case for virtually all of humanity since our history began. The mother’s womb is the rightful place of a child in t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Parthood view of pregnancy makes more sense than the containment view

  This will be a summary of a journal called Were you a part of your mother? that discusses two different views on the relationship between a pregnant person and a fetus. This journal entry refers to the pregnant person as the gravida and the fetus as the foster, so I will be referring to them with those terms as well. One view is the containment view and the other is the parthood view. The containment view seems to be a fairly commonly held view, one that I have seen both sides of the argument hold, so I will be focusing on the parthood view. I believe that the parthood view has a stronger logical standing. I will be summarizing it below by following the four criteria presented for what makes something a whole organism and what is a part of that whole organism. Following that will be the objections and how they can be addressed. I will not address every piece of criteria presented, but will do my best to condense down key points of this 55 minute read. Here is a mini table of co...
Post a Comment
Read more