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

[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?

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

Since when?

 

[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.

Since when?

Since your last ridiculous post.

 

[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.

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

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

Technically, come anti-Roe from SCOTUS, women are going to be held utterly responsible, whether careful or not, underaged or not, raped or not (depending on the state). So you'll have that to comfort yourself.

 

[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.

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

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

Since when?

Since your last ridiculous post.

It'd be nice if you read a post. You never read them. You only respond to them. Personally, I have no idea if you even read The Daily Mail or just quote the byline.

Toni never suggested as such. She indicated that there was a particular moment in sex that is the uber-high risk moment for pregnancy. She didn't say all sex was the threat. You made that ridiculous extrapolation.

 

[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?

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

Since when?

Since your last ridiculous post.

What ‘reckless’ behavior are you talking about? Having sex? Wearing attire that some man finds too sexually provocative to resist? Having her own opinions? Having an opinion that is unflattering to a specific man, subset of men or men in general? Speaking aloud or at all? Not doing as she is told?

Wanting to pursue an education, even an advanced degree and become whatever she wants?

Dating another guy? Marrying him and having kids who have a decent dad instead of a deadbeat loser?

Not accepting that she is nothing but a tramp and a loser of lose morals? Daring to be more than an alcoholic or junkie? Daring not to be dependent on some man for money or self esteem?

Instead of accepting that any pregnancy is her fault and it is her responsibility to skulk off and have said baby as quietly and inexpensively as possible and thereafter to live on subsistence level welfare and only divulge the name of the father when the child is 18 and no longer a financial burden but is hopefully a star quarterback with a full year ride to a good football school so ‘dead’ can have someone to be proud of? At which point she dies, so dad doesn’t have to share any of the limelight or risk recriminations if she talks about how he abandoned his child or otherwise contradict whatever story he decides to tell?

Which, exactly do you personally find most threatening?

 

[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.

Since when?

Since your last ridiculous post.

What ‘reckless’ behavior are you talking about? Having sex?

Yes, the reckless sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy or passing along an STD.

Wearing attire that some man finds too sexually provocative to resist? Having her own opinions? Having an opinion that is unflattering to a specific man, subset of men or men in general? Speaking aloud or at all? Not doing as she is told?

Wanting to pursue an education, even an advanced degree and become whatever she wants?

Dating another guy? Marrying him and having kids who have a decent dad instead of a deadbeat loser?

Not accepting that she is nothing but a tramp and a loser of lose morals? Daring to be more than an alcoholic or junkie? Daring not to be dependent on some man for money or self esteem?

Instead of accepting that any pregnancy is her fault and it is her responsibility to skulk off and have said baby as quietly and inexpensively as possible and thereafter to live on subsistence level welfare and only divulge the name of the father when the child is 18 and no longer a financial burden but is hopefully a star quarterback with a full year ride to a good football school so ‘dead’ can have someone to be proud of? At which point she dies, so dad doesn’t have to share any of the limelight or risk recriminations if she talks about how he abandoned his child or otherwise contradict whatever story he decides to tell?

Which, exactly do you personally find most threatening?

LOL. I knew you could get more ridiculous.

 

[TomC]

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".

Citation please?

I don't usually bother asking for those. But you just made a huge claim here. I don't believe you.
Tom

 

[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.

Obviously, biology is not your strong suit.

The woman already has a "I'm pregnant, don't make eggs" signal. Female hormonal contraception is based on this. There's no male "don't make sperm" signal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It seems to me that he understands you fine, he's just saying something you don't want to hear.

 

[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?

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

Since when?

Since your last ridiculous post.

What ‘reckless’ behavior are you talking about? Having sex?

Yes, the reckless sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy or passing along an STD.

Wearing attire that some man finds too sexually provocative to resist? Having her own opinions? Having an opinion that is unflattering to a specific man, subset of men or men in general? Speaking aloud or at all? Not doing as she is told?

Wanting to pursue an education, even an advanced degree and become whatever she wants?

Dating another guy? Marrying him and having kids who have a decent dad instead of a deadbeat loser?

Not accepting that she is nothing but a tramp and a loser of lose morals? Daring to be more than an alcoholic or junkie? Daring not to be dependent on some man for money or self esteem?

Instead of accepting that any pregnancy is her fault and it is her responsibility to skulk off and have said baby as quietly and inexpensively as possible and thereafter to live on subsistence level welfare and only divulge the name of the father when the child is 18 and no longer a financial burden but is hopefully a star quarterback with a full year ride to a good football school so ‘dead’ can have someone to be proud of? At which point she dies, so dad doesn’t have to share any of the limelight or risk recriminations if she talks about how he abandoned his child or otherwise contradict whatever story he decides to tell?

Which, exactly do you personally find most threatening?

LOL. I knew you could get more ridiculous.

You are right—although it is somewhat off topic: men really do need to wear a condon throughout any kind is sexual contact in order to avoid contracting or passing along any kind of STI.

Sadly, women do not have anything equivalent in terms of effectiveness. So, boys, keep it zipped or wear a raincoat!

 

[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.

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.

I didn't mean to say all that were non-white couldn't, but rather that the low-pay jobs went to the non-whites. A non-white couldn't expect to raise a family on one income.

 

[Toni]

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.

It seems to me that he understands you fine, he's just saying something you don't want to hear.

No, Loren, you’ve got that wrong. I’ve stated a simple fact of biology: every single pregnancy begins with a man ejaculating. That is what causes pregnancy.

Men are losing their minds over some woman having the unmitigated gall to state that simple fact of biology.

Men don’t want to hear any thing that implies they have any responsibility regarding pregnancy.

 

[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.

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.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that back then it could be done for the in group. We ignored the out group and pretended things were good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Maybe not rely on pulling out except with a highly trusted partner? (Not that it has a good track record even then.)

 

[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.

Since when?

Since your last ridiculous post.

What ‘reckless’ behavior are you talking about? Having sex?

Yes, the reckless sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy or passing along an STD.

Wearing attire that some man finds too sexually provocative to resist? Having her own opinions? Having an opinion that is unflattering to a specific man, subset of men or men in general? Speaking aloud or at all? Not doing as she is told?

Wanting to pursue an education, even an advanced degree and become whatever she wants?

Dating another guy? Marrying him and having kids who have a decent dad instead of a deadbeat loser?

Not accepting that she is nothing but a tramp and a loser of lose morals? Daring to be more than an alcoholic or junkie? Daring not to be dependent on some man for money or self esteem?

Instead of accepting that any pregnancy is her fault and it is her responsibility to skulk off and have said baby as quietly and inexpensively as possible and thereafter to live on subsistence level welfare and only divulge the name of the father when the child is 18 and no longer a financial burden but is hopefully a star quarterback with a full year ride to a good football school so ‘dead’ can have someone to be proud of? At which point she dies, so dad doesn’t have to share any of the limelight or risk recriminations if she talks about how he abandoned his child or otherwise contradict whatever story he decides to tell?

Which, exactly do you personally find most threatening?

LOL. I knew you could get more ridiculous.

You are right—although it is somewhat off topic: men really do need to wear a condon throughout any kind is sexual contact in order to avoid contracting or passing along any kind of STI.

Sadly, women do not have anything equivalent in terms of effectiveness. So, boys, keep it zipped or wear a raincoat!

So girls, keep your panties on and legs closed

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Since when?

It's what you're asking for--the whole responsibility being his.

 

[TSwizzle]

Men don’t want to hear any thing that implies they have any responsibility regarding pregnancy.

Every male responding in this thread has said both parties bear some responsibility. You want to absolve women of any responsibility.

 

[Toni]

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.

I didn't mean to say all that were non-white couldn't, but rather that the low-pay jobs went to the non-whites. A non-white couldn't expect to raise a family on one income.

Until post WWII, very few people managed to support a family with only a male job holder. Most workers worked in agriculture even after the industrial revolution. That included women who typically managed the household, put out a garden sufficient to feed a family for the entire year and hopefully with excess to sell, kept a hen house, milked at least one cow if not a dairy farm and more if it was, made garments for the family and mended garments as well, cooked all meals, including for any extra farm hands, canned or otherwise preserved whatever was possible to can, killed, scalded and plucked poultry, and of course raised whatever kids came along. This amounted to significantly more than a full time job by today’s standards. Heck, that’s what my grandmother and aunt still did well into their 70’s, long after WWII.

Women who did not live on a farm typically helped out whatever business or trade the man of the house was engaged in, cooking, cleaning, doing the books, attending to inventory and assisting customers just as her husband did.

It’s a fantasy that women in the good old days did not ‘work.’ Their labor was vital to the survival of the family and family business, whatever that was. Typically they did not get their own paycheck and until the 1970’s could not open a line of credit or purchase a home in their own name.

The History Of Women And Credit Cards | Bankrate

Although credit cards are a modern product, they haven’t always been accessible to women. Here’s a look at why, what brought about key changes and where we are now.

www.bankrate.com

SINGLE WOMEN AS HOMEOWNERS REFLECT FEMINIST GAINS (Published 1981)

www.nytimes.com

 

[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?

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

Since when?

It's what you're asking for--the whole responsibility being his.

Not at all. I’ve merely stated the absolute fact of human biology: every pregnancy starts with a man ejaculating.

 

[Toni]

Men don’t want to hear any thing that implies they have any responsibility regarding pregnancy.

Every male responding in this thread has said both parties bear some responsibility. You want to absolve women of any responsibility.

Why do you think you know what I want?

I have never said that I wanted to absolve women from any responsibility for pregnancy—as if that could happen. Women get pregnant and carry a pregnancy to term ( or don’t) and give birth.

But that all begins when a man ejaculates.