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

[Emily Lake]

Edited*

There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

You know that when women gas up their cars they put the nozzle in the gas tank themselves and pump the gas themselves, yeah?

Sometimes women are so horny they do the same with men’s cocks. Grab the cock, put it in the vagina and start pumping, consequences be damned.

Sure. But unlike the gas nozzle, the man can say no and take his cock out! What an amazing concept! It's magic!

 

[TSwizzle]

Edited*

There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

You know that when women gas up their cars they put the nozzle in the gas tank themselves and pump the gas themselves, yeah?

Sometimes women are so horny they do the same with men’s cocks. Grab the cock, put it in the vagina and start pumping, consequences be damned.

Sure. But unlike the gas nozzle, the man can say no and take his cock out! What an amazing concept! It's magic!

Yeah, but the woman needn't have put the cock in and the woman is free to disengage from the cock at anytime. (this applies to consensual sex of course. I have no desire to get into some dumb comment about rape which is an entirely different scenario and conversation. )

Oh and I'm pretty sure that is an arrangement between couples where the man does take his cock out before ejaculation. Not the most reliable form of birth control but if that's what the two parties agree to then buyer beware.

 

[Jarhyn]

Edited*

There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

You know that when women gas up their cars they put the nozzle in the gas tank themselves and pump the gas themselves, yeah?

Sometimes women are so horny they do the same with men’s cocks. Grab the cock, put it in the vagina and start pumping, consequences be damned.

Sure. But unlike the gas nozzle, the man can say no and take his cock out! What an amazing concept! It's magic!

So, regardless of our conflicts, I will grant that the vast majority of people affected by testosterone have an active compartmentalization that is selected for, and driven/powered by the parts of the brain that get so potentiated by that chemical.

In some ways I wonder if this isn't the primary indicator, really, of whether someone attempts transition of some sort away from Testosterone, namely the visibility of the compartment.

All I knew is that a new song I didn't like started being sung in the network of my neurons, and I know explicitly when it started, I heard... Most of the words of the tune, and I didn't like them.

Principally, for 30 years, I have had this song playing in my head and all I wanted to do was to shut it off.

Most people are "deaf" to it, even if they step to it's beat.

But I'm not sure if every "man" can just take his cock out. There's something in there conflicting with that directive saying "oh no you don't, you're gonna jizz in there". Honestly even knowing it's there doesn't always help.

Every testostronaut has slightly different experiences here, but most certainly there's something hidden to most, just beneath the ignorance of the surface layer.

 

[laughing dog]

Edited*

There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

You know that when women gas up their cars they put the nozzle in the gas tank themselves and pump the gas themselves, yeah?

Sometimes women are so horny they do the same with men’s cocks. Grab the cock, put it in the vagina and start pumping, consequences be damned.

Sure. But unlike the gas nozzle, the man can say no and take his cock out! What an amazing concept! It's magic!

That begs the question of how the cock became available to use. Or is the cock still in the pants when this happens?

 

[Toni]

Emily, this sounds like you think men have more responsibility than women for conception. Is that what you actually think?

I think men have more CONTROL over conception than women do. I also think that men are not expected to exert that control in order to prevent a pregnancy.

Just step back and consider the framing in this thread. How many times has someone essentially said "if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex"? That message has been repeated many times.

How often in this thread have people said "if a man doesn't want to cause a pregnancy, he shouldn't have sex"? A couple of us have said it as a way to highlight the uneven nature of the discussion. But it hasn't been said in absolute seriousness.

Why not?

Oh, I’ve been very serious when I’ve said that if men don’t want to risk causing a pregnancy, they should abstain from sex.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Emily, this sounds like you think men have more responsibility than women for conception. Is that what you actually think?

I think men have more CONTROL over conception than women do. I also think that men are not expected to exert that control in order to prevent a pregnancy.

Just step back and consider the framing in this thread. How many times has someone essentially said "if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex"? That message has been repeated many times.

How often in this thread have people said "if a man doesn't want to cause a pregnancy, he shouldn't have sex"? A couple of us have said it as a way to highlight the uneven nature of the discussion. But it hasn't been said in absolute seriousness.

Why not?

Oh, I’ve been very serious when I’ve said that if men don’t want to risk causing a pregnancy, they should abstain from sex.

Yea, I sure don't think what you are saying is very controversial! Seems like a no brainer to me

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm curious, now that abortion can be made illegal, this effectively means that men that father children are responsible for raising a child now, right?

 

[Toni]

I'm curious, now that abortion can be made illegal, this effectively means that men that father children are responsible for raising a child now, right?

And supporting the mother and the kiddos.

 

[Metaphor]

No: I wrote that receiving ejaculate into your vagina means you are taking on the risk of becoming pregnant.

There are a LOT of situations where a woman may end up having ejaculate in her vagina without having consented to it. They run tha gamut from forcible rape to "oops I lost control and didn't pull out in time".

Why is it so much to ask that we alter the narrative on this? Why is it such a burden to consider reframing that as "depositing ejaculate into a woman's vagina means you're taking on the risk of getting her pregnant"?

Why on earth does it get so much pushback and argument to suggest that men should be expected to take a greater role in the prevention of pregnancy than they do now?

I'm actually a bit baffled on your position on this, Met, seeing as you don't stick your dick in vijayjays in the first place, so exactly zero of this has any impact on you. This seems like it runs into the area where you pretty much just hold a pretty negative view of women overall.

I'm counter-baffled at the amount of resistance and pushback that my original statement got. In consensual penis-in-vagina sex, both sperm and an egg(s) are required for fertilisation. One gamete is not somehow more necessary than the other. Both parties are equally 'causative'.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm curious, now that abortion can be made illegal, this effectively means that men that father children are responsible for raising a child now, right?

I don't see how fathers would have more or fewer (legal) responsibilities than they do now.

 

[Metaphor]

Emily, this sounds like you think men have more responsibility than women for conception. Is that what you actually think?

I think men have more CONTROL over conception than women do.

Except they don't. They have much less. A moderately educated woman knows her cycle and her 'windows' of fertility better than any man.

I also think that men are not expected to exert that control in order to prevent a pregnancy.

Just step back and consider the framing in this thread. How many times has someone essentially said "if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex"? That message has been repeated many times.

How often in this thread have people said "if a man doesn't want to cause a pregnancy, he shouldn't have sex"? A couple of us have said it as a way to highlight the uneven nature of the discussion. But it hasn't been said in absolute seriousness.

Why not?

Well, I don't see what is wrong with either statement (except I'd add penis-in-vagina sex to the description).

I will add, however, that even if society absolutely expected men to be as responsible for avoiding unwanted fertilisations as it does for women, societal expectations won't change biology. Women have to bear the biological burden of the fertilisation and as such, I would expect women would always be more cautious and vigilant.

 

[Metaphor]

Edited*

There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

You know that when women gas up their cars they put the nozzle in the gas tank themselves and pump the gas themselves, yeah?

Sometimes women are so horny they do the same with men’s cocks. Grab the cock, put it in the vagina and start pumping, consequences be damned.

Sure. But unlike the gas nozzle, the man can say no and take his cock out! What an amazing concept! It's magic!

So, regardless of our conflicts, I will grant that the vast majority of people affected by testosterone have an active compartmentalization that is selected for, and driven/powered by the parts of the brain that get so potentiated by that chemical.

In some ways I wonder if this isn't the primary indicator, really, of whether someone attempts transition of some sort away from Testosterone, namely the visibility of the compartment.

All I knew is that a new song I didn't like started being sung in the network of my neurons, and I know explicitly when it started, I heard... Most of the words of the tune, and I didn't like them.

Principally, for 30 years, I have had this song playing in my head and all I wanted to do was to shut it off.

Most people are "deaf" to it, even if they step to it's beat.

But I'm not sure if every "man" can just take his cock out. There's something in there conflicting with that directive saying "oh no you don't, you're gonna jizz in there". Honestly even knowing it's there doesn't always help.

Every testostronaut has slightly different experiences here, but most certainly there's something hidden to most, just beneath the ignorance of the surface layer.

You should not generalise your sexual control issues to the majority of men.

 

[Bomb#20]

Surely the obvious point is that there are a lot of necessary parts, and there is no reason to pick out just one of them from the set and say the process "begins" with that one unless speaker means to ascribe uniqueness to it.

You're not wrong... but I think there's a bit more involved here. There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

Same concept here. There are a lot of elements - inside a woman's body - that have to be there for a pregnancy to occur. If there's not an egg, not a uterine lining, etc. there won't be a pregnancy. But the sperm is the catalyst.

I don't understand your argument. A catalyst is an ingredient in a chemical reaction that needs to be there for the reaction to occur but that does not get used up in the reaction and is still there after the reaction completes. Literally every one of those elements of the car engine is a better fit for "catalyst" than the gasoline is. So when you call the gasoline the catalyst, I can't guess what characteristic you mean to be ascribing to it that the engine parts lack. Can you tell me what you're using "catalyst" as a metaphor for? Or just make your underlying argument without using a metaphor?

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

The engine can't reject the gasoline because it's a mindless machine without awareness or preferences or voluntary actions. I don't think you're claiming the woman is a mindless machine or lacking awareness or lacking preferences or not a voluntary actor. So when you say she can't control whether the sperm gets there, even though she is a voluntary actor too and has complete control over whether she says "No, I don't want to have sex.", you appear to be referring specifically to the fact that in the event that the man is the sort who won't be stopped by "No, I don't want to have sex." and has the physical strength to overpower her, then her choice to reject the sperm won't be what controls whether or not the sperm gets there. Is that what you're getting at?

If that's what you're getting at, then your argument appears to amount to "The woman has no control and the sperm injector has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside if he's a rapist. Therefore the woman has no control and the sperm injector has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside even if he isn't a rapist." That conclusion does not follow from that premise. If there's more to your argument than this, please explain.

 

[Bomb#20]

How is the statement: ‘Every pregnancy begins with some man ejaculating’ false, from a biological standpoint?

I didn't say it was false! False would be a step up for it. From a biological standpoint, your statement is "not even wrong". It is an unfalsifiable metaphysical claim. Whether it is true or false has no effect on any observable phenomenon. From a biological standpoint it is not a statement about biology. It's catechism, exactly like "life begins at conception."

I made no claim that ejaculation was sufficient; merely that it is necessary.

But the circumstance of it being necessary does not provide any support for your contentions against Loren, Metaphor, etc. A lot of steps are necessary for a pregnancy.

And the one that is the most arbitrary part is within the guy's control.

Do you have a way to measure arbitrariness, or are you joining with Toni in making unfalsifiable metaphysical claims?

So much has been made about consent (which actually makes it not rape), but in the end, if the guy doesn't want to get the woman pregnant, he has the most control of that destiny.

"The guy", you say, much the way many early-20th-century social commentators made claims about "the Jew". Which particular guy are you referring to when you say "the guy"?

Some guys are rapists. Other guys are not rapists. If by "the guy", you were referring to a rapist, then your claim appears to have been correct. If by "the guy", you were referring to a non-rapist, then show your work. It looks to me like a non-rapist and a woman have equal control of whether he will get her pregnant. Or are you perhaps claiming all men are rapists?

No amount of consent counts as pregnancy risk mitigation.

If you're talking about sex between a woman and a non-rapist, the "consent=zero" amount of consent counts as a considerable amount of pregnancy risk mitigation. If you're talking about sex between a woman and a rapist, the "consent=zero" amount of consent doesn't count as any pregnancy risk mitigation. Therefore the statement "No amount of consent counts as pregnancy risk mitigation." appears to be extensionally equivalent to the statement "All men physically capable of impregnating women are rapists." Is that what you meant to claim?

If the guy doesn't want her to get pregnant, he can partake in a few different actions to greatly reduce the risk.

What's your point? If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she can also partake in a few different actions to greatly reduce the risk.

The guy is the final firewall on pregnancy risk.

Not if she's using a diaphragm. Why is "final" relevant, anyway? What difference does the order of the firewalls make for determining responsibility?

The woman can consent all she wants, but it is the guy that lights the fuse.

I.e., you are making an analogy between something a guy does and lighting a fuse. Somebody else can make an analogy between something a woman does and lighting a fuse. How does your ability to make up an analogy have any more substantive implication than Toni's ability to pick her favorite necessary but not sufficient event and claim pregnancy "begins" with it?

If there is consent, there is culpability amount both partners for a pregnancy. But that doesn't make any of the above not true.

Only if the pregnancy is a wrongdoing, say, if the partners know they're likely causing a birth defect. Pregnancy isn't normally the sort of thing culpability attaches to.

 

[Toni]

Emily, this sounds like you think men have more responsibility than women for conception. Is that what you actually think?

I think men have more CONTROL over conception than women do.

Except they don't. They have much less. A moderately educated woman knows her cycle and her 'windows' of fertility better than any man.

I also think that men are not expected to exert that control in order to prevent a pregnancy.

Just step back and consider the framing in this thread. How many times has someone essentially said "if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex"? That message has been repeated many times.

How often in this thread have people said "if a man doesn't want to cause a pregnancy, he shouldn't have sex"? A couple of us have said it as a way to highlight the uneven nature of the discussion. But it hasn't been said in absolute seriousness.

Why not?

Well, I don't see what is wrong with either statement (except I'd add penis-in-vagina sex to the description).

I will add, however, that even if society absolutely expected men to be as responsible for avoiding unwanted fertilisations as it does for women, societal expectations won't change biology. Women have to bear the biological burden of the fertilisation and as such, I would expect women would always be more cautious and vigilant.

Wow.

I never took you for a catholic priest before. Learn something new every day.

 

[Metaphor]

Emily, this sounds like you think men have more responsibility than women for conception. Is that what you actually think?

I think men have more CONTROL over conception than women do.

Except they don't. They have much less. A moderately educated woman knows her cycle and her 'windows' of fertility better than any man.

I also think that men are not expected to exert that control in order to prevent a pregnancy.

Just step back and consider the framing in this thread. How many times has someone essentially said "if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex"? That message has been repeated many times.

How often in this thread have people said "if a man doesn't want to cause a pregnancy, he shouldn't have sex"? A couple of us have said it as a way to highlight the uneven nature of the discussion. But it hasn't been said in absolute seriousness.

Why not?

Well, I don't see what is wrong with either statement (except I'd add penis-in-vagina sex to the description).

I will add, however, that even if society absolutely expected men to be as responsible for avoiding unwanted fertilisations as it does for women, societal expectations won't change biology. Women have to bear the biological burden of the fertilisation and as such, I would expect women would always be more cautious and vigilant.

Wow.

I never took you for a catholic priest before. Learn something new every day.

Um, okay.

What, specifically, did I say that was 'Catholic priesty'?

I think it is "if something unwanted can happen to you, you should and will taken precautions to prevent it from happening. But if something unwanted can never happen to you, you don't need to take precautions against it".

Men cannot ever become pregnant, accidentally or not. Men don't need to take precautions against becoming pregnant. I will never ever need to take precautions against becoming pregnant.

This is a biological reality. I don't know what is "Catholic priesty" about that.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can a pregnancy occur without a man committing the voluntary act that is ejaculating?

Yes, of course it can. Ejaculations do not have to be voluntary and they do not have to be in connection with sexual activity.

But, when a man voluntary ejaculates into a woman's vagina, and she has voluntarily consented to that ejaculate, they both played an equal and necessary role in any resulting conception.

Alright, I'm genuinely curious what sort of non-sexual involuntary ejaculation can result in a pregnancy.

That's the story line of The World According to Garp.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant. So what? That does not make him somehow more responsible for the woman's pregnancy than he already was or wasn't.

Let's be real here. Right now the man's portion of responsibility for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is zero, zilch, nada, nothing. ... It takes two to create a pregnancy, but right now ONLY ONE IS CONSIDERED RESPONSIBLE FOR AVOIDING PREGNANCY.

Can you please rewrite that sentence without using passive voice?

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut". All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Can you also please rewrite that sentence without using passive voice?

[Note: I am not an English teacher. People can use any grammar they please. This post is not on the topic of the alleged stylistic inferiority of passive voice.]

 

[Toni]

Birth control fails. Every single method fails sometimes. Including sterilization.

Sure, some birth control methods have a higher failure rate than others but all have a failure rate >zero. Name a method and I absolutely guarantee I personally know someone who got pregnant using that method:

The pill: several
IUD: yep
Diaphragm: oh, yes
Rhythm method ( for all of you guys who think women should just know their cycle: I live in a very Catholic town. I know a lot of people who came into being because their parents used the rhythm method
Abstinence: Yeah. A friend got pregnant when she was raped. Another friend got pregnant during domestic assault—rape, although she was too traumatized to call it that. Or to report it. She refused to use the word rape because they were married. But yes, unless the fear and panic in her face, her voice, her body language were the best acting in the planet—rape. They’re still married. I don’t understand why but they are.

Pull out: Yes. As pointed out unthread, sperm can be present in pre-ejaculatory fluid. And let’s be honest: not every guy has as much self control as would be ideal, particularly young and/or less experienced guys,

Condoms: definitely yes—condoms come off or break or??? How the heck did that happen?? Or weren’t used as promised.


Over and over men in this thread have sought to limit discussion to whatever they term is consensual sex. Not all pregnancies occur because of consensual sex.

 

[Bomb#20]

Over and over men in this thread have sought to limit discussion to whatever they term is consensual sex. Not all pregnancies occur because of consensual sex.

It's not about limiting discussion. Discuss nonconsensual sex all you want. It's about some folks here using nonspecific talk of sex as way to sweep the distinction between consensual sex and nonconsensual sex under the rug, so as to perpetrate an equivocation fallacy of the form "Men are more responsible than women for nonconsensual sex. Therefore men are more responsible than women for sex. Therefore men are more responsible than women for consensual sex." The circumstance that it's your thread and it's a free* country entitles you to talk about nonconsensual sex all you please but it does not entitle you to use a transparently illogical line of reasoning and not get called on it.

(* Well, free until yesterday.)