I meant if they're drunk at a party and end up in a consenting one night stand because of it haha.
Except a drunk person can't give consent.
And, yes, I know the argument can keep going back step after step. "But you chose to drink, therefore you have to accept the responsibility." I would just say then, where does that stop? At what point do we say "You made choices, but you don't have to live with all the consequences because we have the means of ameliorating them and we don't think you should have to suffer needlessly."
Let's go with the driving scenario. Driving can be dangerous. We know this, we do what we can to make sure people are safe when driving (forcing people to have licenses, making driving while intoxicated illegal, etc.) but we don't force people to suffer the consequences of everything that happens when they drive. If I'm making the conscious decision to drive, knowing full well that there is potential for harm, and some other driver crashes into me, we don't say "Well, you chose to drive so you have to live with the consequences."
I'm all for people being responsible. I just don't think it's right to blame someone for all the outcomes of their actions, particularly if they show they're being responsible for their actions early on after something happens. Going back to my driving scenario, if I drive at night and I hit a car, a car that wouldn't have been hit had I not driven, even though there was a pothole I couldn't see and the car came around a blind curve and I immediately called 911, should I really be responsible for all that happens?
That's just another way of saying the same thing, right? These women aren't making use of their newfound freedom for the sake of benefiting the collective, are they?
Maybe they are. Maybe they work in some non-profit or they babysit their neighbor's children, or they're the only person in their office who can speak Chinese and without them the office would fold up and a bunch of breadwinners would be out of bread. I mean, there are a lot of ways women can benefit the collective without having children.
I suppose what I said wasn't the most politically correct sounding statement because we'd all envision ourselves to be selfless altruists but the fact of the matter is that there is more focus on the woman as an individual, and so whatever sentiments there were for the fetus as a life has been pushed away for a woman's options. Women were once, in a sense, expected to make that kind of self-sacrifice and now that expectation is being overturned, so it's definitely a cultural shift, too.
And... you think that's bad or what?
In principle and in the perfect world I'd imagine the decision to have an abortion to be between both parties, but those that go through with it are hardly a family anyways so there's no reason to expect that kind of decision-making to happen. The rights of a woman's body probably win over in this kind of conundrum, when it comes down to the yes or no.
I don't think there's a right to sex. You have the right to liberty, but to call it a "right to have sex" is really trivializing human rights talk.
Don't forget that some abortions are going to take place for a woman who is married, and for some who are married with children. In those cases you can assume that there is a family and more communication about the decision.