Who is responsible for pregnancies? (Derail from: Policies that will reduce abortions)

[ramoss]

The question is broader today.

A sing;le woman can go to a sperm bank and get impregnated can she not? Or a single man can adopt or pay a female surrogate to carry a baby if he can afford it.

With the passing of the tradition of the nuclear family child support increasingly becomes a govt and tax issue. Day care is now a 'crisis'. The old norm was to start a family the guy was supposed to be able to make a living and the wife took care of the hids during the day. There was a social stigma to single parenthood by accident or by choice.

A lot of this is not relevant. Another issue is not 'day care', but rather the balance between what people get payed , and the cost of living, Back in the 50's and early 60's, a man could get a non-skilled job, pay for a house, a wife, and two kids, and there be enough money that the wife could choose to stay home with the kids. Then, wages did not keep up with inflation, and the middle class and lower force the conditions where having a two income household was no longer optional to be able to afford children. That is what destroyed the tradition of the nuclear family, and that's the need for both parents to work,and traditionally, men get paid more than women. Unless you have single person with plenty of cash, the sperm bank/surrogate option is not viable, there is something known as 'finances' that get in the way. that makes that line of argumentation not relevant to the issue at hand.

 

[ramoss]

Why would it bother you what I think? I’m just a woman, after all. We’re all either monsters or weak vessels, by your standards.

You're the one saying women are weak, that they can't simply say no if he's not going to use a condom.

There are cases that men have removed condoms in the middle of the act so to speak. I know one woman that broke up with their bf because he did so, and since she is on medications that birth control pills interfere with, she can not use hormonal birth control. She was furious, and broke up. However, those actions could potentially cause pregnancy Also, no birth control method is 100% , so there is always the risk anyway, even when both parties consent, and take all proper precautions.

 

[Toni]

Or things just get heated fairly rapidly and she doesn't realize until it's a too late that the condom has not been employed. I suppose that falls under the heading of 'fails to use the condom properly.' Most of those posting are not young men so they perhaps forget the urgency that can cause one to forget to use a condom. Or a diaphragm. Maybe they forgot the days of waking up in the middle of the night (both of you) and being engaged in behavior that could result in a baby. Maybe that's never happened to them. Which, in a way, is sad. OTOH, they probably don't have any oopsy kids.

All of these are as much her fault as his.

Really, Loren. It's not 'fault,' it's a responsibility. And guess what, if one wakes up with one's partner inside of you, it is hardly your fault.

You were just blaming the men, but now it's nobody's fault?!

I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference between blame, fault and responsibility.

 

[laughing dog]

Women could avoid any unwanted pregnancy by not letting ejaculate in or near their vagina*

*Asterisked for instant bad-faith bullshit response. I am talking about consensual sex between adults.

Of course they could. But that principle is pretty fucking stupid. After all, anyone avoid being hit by a car while crossing the street by not crossing the street.

What you and LP and some others seem unable to grasp is the simple biological facts. It takes a sperm and an egg in order to make a fetus. Unless the sperm is surgically removed from the male, any pregnancy requires an ejaculation by a male.

Whether the ejaculation was voluntary or not is irrelevant to that biological fact. Whether or not the ejaculation was consented to is irrelevant to that fact.

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

 

[Metaphor]

Women could avoid any unwanted pregnancy by not letting ejaculate in or near their vagina*

*Asterisked for instant bad-faith bullshit response. I am talking about consensual sex between adults.

Of course they could. But that principle is pretty fucking stupid. After all, anyone avoid being hit by a car while crossing the street by not crossing the street.

What you and LP and some others seem unable to grasp is the simple biological facts. It takes a sperm and an egg in order to make a fetus. Unless the sperm is surgically removed from the male, any pregnancy requires an ejaculation by a male.

You don't say. In what universe have I denied that? Yes, a fertilised egg requires sperm....and the egg.

Whether the ejaculation was voluntary or not is irrelevant to that biological fact. Whether or not the ejaculation was consented to is irrelevant to that fact.

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

 

[Tigers!]

If this thread was a horse...

IT would be dizzy from going around in circles.

 

[laughing dog]

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

You are while flinging out a bad faith conclusions.

 

[Toni]

Women could avoid any unwanted pregnancy by not letting ejaculate in or near their vagina*

*Asterisked for instant bad-faith bullshit response. I am talking about consensual sex between adults.

Of course they could. But that principle is pretty fucking stupid. After all, anyone avoid being hit by a car while crossing the street by not crossing the street.

What you and LP and some others seem unable to grasp is the simple biological facts. It takes a sperm and an egg in order to make a fetus. Unless the sperm is surgically removed from the male, any pregnancy requires an ejaculation by a male.

You don't say. In what universe have I denied that? Yes, a fertilised egg requires sperm....and the egg.

Whether the ejaculation was voluntary or not is irrelevant to that biological fact. Whether or not the ejaculation was consented to is irrelevant to that fact.

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

Of course I understand that both sperm and egg are necessary. Women do not go around injecting their eggs into men. Nope, they keep their ova to themselves. If men kept their sperm to themselves, unless the woman wanted to become pregnant, there would be no unwelcome pregnancies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or things just get heated fairly rapidly and she doesn't realize until it's a too late that the condom has not been employed. I suppose that falls under the heading of 'fails to use the condom properly.' Most of those posting are not young men so they perhaps forget the urgency that can cause one to forget to use a condom. Or a diaphragm. Maybe they forgot the days of waking up in the middle of the night (both of you) and being engaged in behavior that could result in a baby. Maybe that's never happened to them. Which, in a way, is sad. OTOH, they probably don't have any oopsy kids.

All of these are as much her fault as his.

Really, Loren. It's not 'fault,' it's a responsibility. And guess what, if one wakes up with one's partner inside of you, it is hardly your fault.

You were just blaming the men, but now it's nobody's fault?!

I’m not blaming men. I’m stating the fact: every single pregnancy is the result of some man ejaculating.

Unlike you, I don’t see pregnancy as a terrible punishment that women must face alone because men just aren’t up to the task.

I'm not seeing it as a terrible punishment, either. I just am objecting to the notion that the woman isn't equally responsible--you're acting like it's the guy's fault when she consented to what happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Men certainly can take the pill but it is unlikely to be effective at stopping sperm production or convincing men to make better choices about where they ejaculate..

Once again, trying to blame the men.

Men have largely been responsible for drug development. Instead of focusing their efforts on a medication that would allow them to control their fertility, they instead focused on ways that women might be able to control hers. Various forms of the make pill have been developed and disregarded because of side effects—which are significantly less serious or bothersome than those that come with the current female only birth control pill. Or IUD forgot that matter.

The reason we have a female pill and not a male pill is that the female pill is hijacking already-existing biology, there is no such system to hijack in the male. Thus a male pill is far harder to develop than a female pill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question is broader today.

A sing;le woman can go to a sperm bank and get impregnated can she not? Or a single man can adopt or pay a female surrogate to carry a baby if he can afford it.

With the passing of the tradition of the nuclear family child support increasingly becomes a govt and tax issue. Day care is now a 'crisis'. The old norm was to start a family the guy was supposed to be able to make a living and the wife took care of the hids during the day. There was a social stigma to single parenthood by accident or by choice.

A lot of this is not relevant. Another issue is not 'day care', but rather the balance between what people get payed , and the cost of living, Back in the 50's and early 60's, a man could get a non-skilled job, pay for a house, a wife, and two kids, and there be enough money that the wife could choose to stay home with the kids. Then, wages did not keep up with inflation, and the middle class and lower force the conditions where having a two income household was no longer optional to be able to afford children. That is what destroyed the tradition of the nuclear family, and that's the need for both parents to work,and traditionally, men get paid more than women. Unless you have single person with plenty of cash, the sperm bank/surrogate option is not viable, there is something known as 'finances' that get in the way. that makes that line of argumentation not relevant to the issue at hand.

A white man could. Not white, or not a man, or not American--nope. We pushed the low wage jobs off on other groups and pretended everyone could support a household.

 

[Metaphor]

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

You are while flinging out a bad faith conclusions.

What bad faith conclusion? That eggs are necessary for conception?

 

[Metaphor]

Women could avoid any unwanted pregnancy by not letting ejaculate in or near their vagina*

*Asterisked for instant bad-faith bullshit response. I am talking about consensual sex between adults.

Of course they could. But that principle is pretty fucking stupid. After all, anyone avoid being hit by a car while crossing the street by not crossing the street.

What you and LP and some others seem unable to grasp is the simple biological facts. It takes a sperm and an egg in order to make a fetus. Unless the sperm is surgically removed from the male, any pregnancy requires an ejaculation by a male.

You don't say. In what universe have I denied that? Yes, a fertilised egg requires sperm....and the egg.

Whether the ejaculation was voluntary or not is irrelevant to that biological fact. Whether or not the ejaculation was consented to is irrelevant to that fact.

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

Of course I understand that both sperm and egg are necessary. Women do not go around injecting their eggs into men. Nope, they keep their ova to themselves. If men kept their sperm to themselves, unless the woman wanted to become pregnant, there would be no unwelcome pregnancies.

You evidently do not understand. You appear to think women have no agency, and cannot decide to keep sperm away from their vaginas.

Your easy misogyny and dehumanisation and infantilisation of women is tiresome.

Fertilised eggs require both an egg and a sperm. Women bring half the ingredients to the table. Deal with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would it bother you what I think? I’m just a woman, after all. We’re all either monsters or weak vessels, by your standards.

You're the one saying women are weak, that they can't simply say no if he's not going to use a condom.

There are cases that men have removed condoms in the middle of the act so to speak. I know one woman that broke up with their bf because he did so, and since she is on medications that birth control pills interfere with, she can not use hormonal birth control. She was furious, and broke up. However, those actions could potentially cause pregnancy Also, no birth control method is 100% , so there is always the risk anyway, even when both parties consent, and take all proper precautions.

In my book that's rape. And really stupid since presumably he knew she wasn't on the pill.

 

[Toni]

Men certainly can take the pill but it is unlikely to be effective at stopping sperm production or convincing men to make better choices about where they ejaculate..

Once again, trying to blame the men.

Men have largely been responsible for drug development. Instead of focusing their efforts on a medication that would allow them to control their fertility, they instead focused on ways that women might be able to control hers. Various forms of the make pill have been developed and disregarded because of side effects—which are significantly less serious or bothersome than those that come with the current female only birth control pill. Or IUD forgot that matter.

The reason we have a female pill and not a male pill is that the female pill is hijacking already-existing biology, there is no such system to hijack in the male. Thus a male pill is far harder to develop than a female pill.

Obviously, biology is not your strong suit.

 

[Toni]

Women could avoid any unwanted pregnancy by not letting ejaculate in or near their vagina*

*Asterisked for instant bad-faith bullshit response. I am talking about consensual sex between adults.

Of course they could. But that principle is pretty fucking stupid. After all, anyone avoid being hit by a car while crossing the street by not crossing the street.

What you and LP and some others seem unable to grasp is the simple biological facts. It takes a sperm and an egg in order to make a fetus. Unless the sperm is surgically removed from the male, any pregnancy requires an ejaculation by a male.

You don't say. In what universe have I denied that? Yes, a fertilised egg requires sperm....and the egg.

Whether the ejaculation was voluntary or not is irrelevant to that biological fact. Whether or not the ejaculation was consented to is irrelevant to that fact.

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

Of course I understand that both sperm and egg are necessary. Women do not go around injecting their eggs into men. Nope, they keep their ova to themselves. If men kept their sperm to themselves, unless the woman wanted to become pregnant, there would be no unwelcome pregnancies.

You evidently do not understand. You appear to think women have no agency, and cannot decide to keep sperm away from their vaginas.

Your easy misogyny and dehumanisation and infantilisation of women is tiresome.

Fertilised eggs require both an egg and a sperm. Women bring half the ingredients to the table. Deal with it.

Wow. Just because you disagree with what I write is no reason to pretend that you do not adequately understand the written word and are therefore able to simply substitute insults for cogent arguments.

 

[Metaphor]

Women could avoid any unwanted pregnancy by not letting ejaculate in or near their vagina*

*Asterisked for instant bad-faith bullshit response. I am talking about consensual sex between adults.

Of course they could. But that principle is pretty fucking stupid. After all, anyone avoid being hit by a car while crossing the street by not crossing the street.

What you and LP and some others seem unable to grasp is the simple biological facts. It takes a sperm and an egg in order to make a fetus. Unless the sperm is surgically removed from the male, any pregnancy requires an ejaculation by a male.

You don't say. In what universe have I denied that? Yes, a fertilised egg requires sperm....and the egg.

Whether the ejaculation was voluntary or not is irrelevant to that biological fact. Whether or not the ejaculation was consented to is irrelevant to that fact.

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

Of course I understand that both sperm and egg are necessary. Women do not go around injecting their eggs into men. Nope, they keep their ova to themselves. If men kept their sperm to themselves, unless the woman wanted to become pregnant, there would be no unwelcome pregnancies.

You evidently do not understand. You appear to think women have no agency, and cannot decide to keep sperm away from their vaginas.

Your easy misogyny and dehumanisation and infantilisation of women is tiresome.

Fertilised eggs require both an egg and a sperm. Women bring half the ingredients to the table. Deal with it.

Wow. Just because you disagree with what I write is no reason to pretend that you do not adequately understand the written word and are therefore able to simply substitute insults for cogent arguments.

I do not simply 'disagree', as if it were a matter of taste or opinion. Ova are necessary but not sufficient for egg fertilisation, which puts them in the exact same category as sperm.

No woman is getting pregnant without sperm. Neither is she getting pregnant without ova. Both are necessary and neither is sufficient.

 

[ZiprHead]

The question is broader today.

A sing;le woman can go to a sperm bank and get impregnated can she not? Or a single man can adopt or pay a female surrogate to carry a baby if he can afford it.

With the passing of the tradition of the nuclear family child support increasingly becomes a govt and tax issue. Day care is now a 'crisis'. The old norm was to start a family the guy was supposed to be able to make a living and the wife took care of the hids during the day. There was a social stigma to single parenthood by accident or by choice.

A lot of this is not relevant. Another issue is not 'day care', but rather the balance between what people get payed , and the cost of living, Back in the 50's and early 60's, a man could get a non-skilled job, pay for a house, a wife, and two kids, and there be enough money that the wife could choose to stay home with the kids. Then, wages did not keep up with inflation, and the middle class and lower force the conditions where having a two income household was no longer optional to be able to afford children. That is what destroyed the tradition of the nuclear family, and that's the need for both parents to work,and traditionally, men get paid more than women. Unless you have single person with plenty of cash, the sperm bank/surrogate option is not viable, there is something known as 'finances' that get in the way. that makes that line of argumentation not relevant to the issue at hand.

A white man could. Not white, or not a man, or not American--nope. We pushed the low wage jobs off on other groups and pretended everyone could support a household.

Almost 89% of the US population was white in 1960. Auto plants in Michigan had significant amounts of black and hispanic workers making good money doing good union jobs.

 

[laughing dog]

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

You are while flinging out a bad faith conclusions.

What bad faith conclusion? That eggs are necessary for conception?

So many and so little time. It is sufficient (but not necessary) to say your entire "voluntary" crapola misses the entire point and is a derailment.

 

[Metaphor]

Why those simple facts are ignored in order to generate stupid and bad-faith arguments, I will leave to others to ponder.

Who is ignoring them? It seems to me Toni cannot understand that sperm is necessary, but not sufficient, for a fertilised egg.

You are while flinging out a bad faith conclusions.

What bad faith conclusion? That eggs are necessary for conception?

So many and so little time. It is sufficient (but not necessary) to say your entire "voluntary" crapola misses the entire point and is a derailment.

So you can't name a one.

The thread is about who is responsible for pregnancies. The people who engaged in the sex that caused it are responsible. Deal with it.