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.

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.

That was always job inequality. However, it shows that in concept it has been done, and could be done if there wasn't the oligarchy in control.

 

[Emily Lake]

I didn't expect to EVER agree with you but here we are. AWKWARD~

Yeah, if you step back and think about it objectively, there's quite a bit that you and I agree on... and only one topic where we partially disagree. Give that some thinking...

 

[Emily Lake]

What is so hard about the concept of both parties being responsible?

Alright. Let's unpack this.

In your view, what actions should each party take to be responsible and prevent an unwanted pregnancy? What actions do you expect a responsible woman to take, and what actions do you expect a responsible man to take?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You seem to be really remarkably unaware of the frequency with which men LIE. They say they've put on a condom, but they don't.

 

[Emily Lake]

First, the involuntary acts to compare are 'producing sperm' and 'producing ova', over which neither sex has control. Except that women can take the Pill to prevent their periods all together, with no such oral birth control available to men.

Uh, no. They actually invented a birth control pill for men, which had fewer side effects than those for women. Men decided those side effects were "too much". They're just fine with having women face the side effects of birth control pills, but unwilling to face fewer of their own effects in order to be responsible for their sperm.

Second, men can control where they ejaculate and women can control where they receive ejaculate. It seems to me you think women cannot resist penis-in-vagina sex, or that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape. I am sorry your opinion of women is so catastrophically and misogynistically low.

HOW THE EVER LOVING FUCK IS A WOMAN SUPPOSED TO FORCE A GUY TO PULL OUT BEFORE HE EJACULATES IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO?

 

[Emily Lake]

They value their pleasure over the woman’s well being.

That's the crux of the issue, right there.

 

[Emily Lake]

My mother voluntarily became pregnant several times. Indeed, my father wanted to stop having children after he'd fathered two with my mother, but that isn't what my mother wanted. Did he not care about my mother's well being?

Hmm. Is there anything at all that your father could have done to prevent those pregnancies? Anything?

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Just for clarity... women bring half the ingredients to the table for a few days a month. Men bring half the ingredients to the table every single time, and are capable of doing so multiple times every day.

While both men and women produce their respective gametes without control... women cannot control when their eggs are released, nor where. On the other hand, men are 100% in control of when and where their sperm is released.

Bad Analogy Time: Women bring an oven to the kitchen. Men bring the cake batter. Men bring the cake batter every day, every hour, and have complete control over what kind of pan gets used. Women can't force an oven around that cake batter, but men can force the cake batter into the oven.

 

[Metaphor]

First, the involuntary acts to compare are 'producing sperm' and 'producing ova', over which neither sex has control. Except that women can take the Pill to prevent their periods all together, with no such oral birth control available to men.

Uh, no. They actually invented a birth control pill for men, which had fewer side effects than those for women.

Non. There is no 'birth control' pill for men. If I go to my physician to ask for one, he will say 'there is not one'. I cannot buy one even if I wanted to. It cannot be got for love nor money.

Men decided those side effects were "too much".

I assume you are talking about the development of a particular product. Which product?

They're just fine with having women face the side effects of birth control pills, but unwilling to face fewer of their own effects in order to be responsible for their sperm.

I am fine with women taking control of their fertility.

Second, men can control where they ejaculate and women can control where they receive ejaculate. It seems to me you think women cannot resist penis-in-vagina sex, or that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape. I am sorry your opinion of women is so catastrophically and misogynistically low.

HOW THE EVER LOVING FUCK IS A WOMAN SUPPOSED TO FORCE A GUY TO PULL OUT BEFORE HE EJACULATES IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO?

In what way is that relevant?

When women consent to penis-in-vagina sex, they consent to the possibility that sperm will fertilise their ova. If a man or a woman substantively misleads their partner about something, the act is not consensual to the extent of the misleading.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Just for clarity... women bring half the ingredients to the table for a few days a month. Men bring half the ingredients to the table every single time, and are capable of doing so multiple times every day.

Entirely irrelevant. No sperm has ever fertilised an egg without an egg present. No egg has ever become fertilised without a sperm to do it.*

*Excepting Gospa's.

While both men and women produce their respective gametes without control... women cannot control when their eggs are released, nor where.

Well, they can, with the Pill.

On the other hand, men are 100% in control of when and where their sperm is released.

In fact, they're not in 100% control, as the nocturnal emissions of many teenage boys will attest.

Bad Analogy Time: Women bring an oven to the kitchen. Men bring the cake batter. Men bring the cake batter every day, every hour, and have complete control over what kind of pan gets used. Women can't force an oven around that cake batter, but men can force the cake batter into the oven.

It's a bad analogy because you are describing rape, not consensual sex.

 

[Bomb#20]

... 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,..

In the first place, wages have kept up with inflation; it's just that people's expectations of standard of living have advanced -- wages in the lower percentiles have been growing a lot more slowly than in the higher percentiles. And in the second place, there's cause-and-effect going on here. Wages haven't kept up with the growth of the economy because wives are no longer choosing* to stay home with the kids. Wages like every other price are the result of supply and demand. On what planet could you reasonably expect to suddenly double the number of people competing for those non-skilled jobs and not get a lot of downward pressure on wages?

(* Or, let's call things by their right names, no longer required to stay home with the kids. Those 50's/60's men's satisfactory wages were a consequence of having half as many competitors, in a backward culture where huge numbers of male chauvinist pig managers simply refused to consider women for jobs.)

 

[Metaphor]

My mother voluntarily became pregnant several times. Indeed, my father wanted to stop having children after he'd fathered two with my mother, but that isn't what my mother wanted. Did he not care about my mother's well being?

Hmm. Is there anything at all that your father could have done to prevent those pregnancies? Anything?

Yes. He could have stopped having condomless penis-in-vagina sex with my mother. He didn't do that, so he was just as responsible for the creation of his children as my mother was.

That's how it works. My father consented to his sperm being ejaculated into my mother, and my mother consented to receiving the ejaculate. There is simply no universe where they are not equally responsible for the conceptions that arose.

 

[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.

So you can't name a one.

I was and am too tired to deal with your bullshit and bad faith reasoning on a detailed level, so your conclusion is reasonable but wrong. But the bold-faced above is an example.

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

As usual, you misinterpret the discussion to fit your narrow view. While it is possible you will figure it out, if history is any guide, expecting otherwise is the impossible dream. So, I will let you have the last word.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

You seem to be really remarkably unaware of the frequency with which men LIE. They say they've put on a condom, but they don't.

If someone is misled about part of a sexual act, the act is nonconsensual to the extent of the misleading.

So, if a man simply lies to a woman that he will wear a condom and doesn't wear one and refuses to stop copulating if he is told to withdraw, that's nonconsensual.

But both men and women should know that even when correctly used, condoms are not 100% effective. So men and women would still be equally responsible for a conception if a condom did not work.

 

[Toni]

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.

You seem to be really remarkably unaware of the frequency with which men LIE. They say they've put on a condom, but they don't.

If someone is misled about part of a sexual act, the act is nonconsensual to the extent of the misleading.

So, if a man simply lies to a woman that he will wear a condom and doesn't wear one and refuses to stop copulating if he is told to withdraw, that's nonconsensual.

But both men and women should know that even when correctly used, condoms are not 100% effective. So men and women would still be equally responsible for a conception if a condom did not work.

Sure, but if the man simply made the decision not to ejaculate in or near the vagina, there would be no pregnancy.

 

[TSwizzle]

Sure, but if the man simply made the decision not to ejaculate in or near the vagina, there would be no pregnancy.

If the woman 100% does not want to become pregnant, do not invite the penis in to the vagina. Take some responsibility and/or contraceptive.

 

[Toni]

Sure, but if the man simply made the decision not to ejaculate in or near the vagina, there would be no pregnancy.

If the woman 100% does not want to become pregnant, do not invite the penis in to the vagina. Take some responsibility and/or contraceptive.

Sure, why should men be denied their responsibility free orgasms?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure, but if the man simply made the decision not to ejaculate in or near the vagina, there would be no pregnancy.

If the woman 100% does not want to become pregnant, do not invite the penis in to the vagina. Take some responsibility and/or contraceptive.

Toni: Well if Men don't A.
TSwizzle: Well if Woman don't B.

Toni didn't say not B'ing, she said not A'ing. B'ing is possible without A'ing. In fact, a lot of B'ing can happen without any A'ing. B'ing without A'ing isn't a guaranteed sure thing, but it notably reduces the risk, and effectively eliminates it if suited up.

Toni effectively said, one should buckle up to avoid getting hurt/killed in car accident, where as TSwizzle says don't drive in a car. It really is silly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

You seem to be really remarkably unaware of the frequency with which men LIE. They say they've put on a condom, but they don't.

If someone is misled about part of a sexual act, the act is nonconsensual to the extent of the misleading.

So, if a man simply lies to a woman that he will wear a condom and doesn't wear one and refuses to stop copulating if he is told to withdraw, that's nonconsensual.

I think the word is "rape".

 

[TSwizzle]

Sure, but if the man simply made the decision not to ejaculate in or near the vagina, there would be no pregnancy.

If the woman 100% does not want to become pregnant, do not invite the penis in to the vagina. Take some responsibility and/or contraceptive.

Sure, why should men be denied their responsibility free orgasms?

Women can indulge in any reckless behavior and have zero responsibility for anything.