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

[Bomb#20]

It is very telling that repeatedly men are attempting to define the conversation along lines that suit them. I (inadvertently) started this thread and I get to define how I want the conversation to go.

According to you, men start pregnancies. So according to your logic, men get to define how pregnancies go.

Why do you think “men get to define how pregnancies go” is the necessary result from”men start pregnancies”?

Why do you think you're entitled to beat your wife?

i don’t .

And I don't think “men get to define how pregnancies go” is the necessary result from”men start pregnancies”. You asked me a question that assumes facts not in evidence, just like a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question.

I asked because your question appeared uncharacteristically illogical to me that I thought I missed the underlying nuanced reason(s).

You asked because you have poor reading comprehension. Exactly which part of "So according to your logic, " do you have difficulty understanding that induced you to just pretend that part wasn't there when you attempted to paraphrase my argument so carelessly?

I used the present tense to ask you to show your work.

You were not asking me to show my work. You were asking me to show your work. You were asking me to show work that reached a conclusion you made up, not work that reached my conclusion.

Your insulting deflection strongly suggests to me that there your question had no logical foundation.

It was not an insulting deflection. It was an attempt to draw your attention to the fact that you had assumed facts about me not in evidence, just like a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. That is not a deflection. That is going straight to the heart of your error.

 

[Toni]

I may be taking you wrong, but you seem to be deliberately argumentative.

I understand that you didn't choose to make the derail into a thread.

But go back and reread the first post in the thread. Scroll through a few of your own posts in it.

See if you can understand why I find this quote from you so laughably ironic.
Tom

You mean: I made a point and have stuck to it?

Do you recall some poster or another, maybe more than one, saying women just need to keep their knees together? Not one damn word about men keeping their penis in their pants. It’s almost as though men think they have absolutely nothing to do with women getting pregnant, although they sure do have lots to say about child support and abortion, which they think they should get to decide if it’s the ‘right’ decision for the person who is pregnant.

I made a simple, declarative and factual statement and men have lost their damn minds trying to disavow any connection between what men do with their penises and pregnancy.

 

[TSwizzle]

Do you recall some poster or another, maybe more than one, saying women just need to keep their knees together? Not one damn word about men keeping their penis in their pants.

That is false.

I made a simple, declarative and factual statement and men have lost their damn minds trying to disavow any connection between what men do with their penises and pregnancy.

Also false.

 

[Bomb#20]

My apologies: A better word would have been determined. In human reproduction, sex is determined by the father.

Nonsense. Sex is determined by which sperm wins a swim meet. The father does not determine which sperm wins. You might as well claim Parker Brothers determines whether you land on Boardwalk since it manufactured the dice.

The father produces the sperm. The sperm determines the sex. The father producing the sperm determines the sex.

That is incorrect reasoning. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If your inference rule were correct, it would equally support this:

The grandmother produces the father. The father produces the sperm. The sperm determines the sex. The father producing the sperm determines the sex. The grandmother producing the father producing the sperm determines the sex.​

Random processes are not determined by one of their causes among many. The position of the ovum in the uterus, the viscosity of the fluid the sperm swim through, etc., all affect which sperm wins.

My use of the word 'determines' does not, in this instance, imply conscious choice but mere biological fact. I thought that was obvious because I corrected my word choice.

Yes, that was obvious; but the fact that you no longer said "that choice was made by her dad" does not magically make what you changed it to correct. You simply swapped one error for another.

I may be taking you wrong, but you seem to be deliberately argumentative.

Fair point. Argumentativeness is of course why we're all here, but it would be better to get to the root of the matter in our arguments. So let's do that. When you wrote "that choice was made by her dad", why did you think the sex information delivery function of sperm in meiosis-mediated reproduction of mammals has any relevance to the topic you were discussing?

 

[TomC]

Not one damn word about men keeping their penis in their pants.

This isn't just a little mistaken. It's somewhere between ideological blindness and insanity. Totally demonstrably false.

I've done it many times. Probably more than once in this thread alone. I've lost track of how many times I've said almost exactly that here on IIDB alone.

It takes two to tango. Men should pay substantial child support if they help produce a child.
Etc.
Etc.


Pretending that nobody has said this is ridiculous. Lots of people, male and female have said it, in multiple ways.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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".

That's a risk she chose to take.

"Well, she had sex, so she chose to take the risk of getting herself pregnant. If she didn't want to get pregnant, she should've kept her legs closed"

All the responsibility is on the woman, none is on the man.

 

[Emily Lake]

My apologies: A better word would have been determined. In human reproduction, sex is determined by the father.

Nonsense. Sex is determined by which sperm wins a swim meet. The father does not determine which sperm wins. You might as well claim Parker Brothers determines whether you land on Boardwalk since it manufactured the dice.

This is... questionable... framing.

Females ONLY contribute X chromosomes. The determination of whether a fetus is male or female comes ENTIRELY from the male contribution of sperm. The father's contribution determines the sex of the fetus. It may not be intentional, it may not be by "choice"... but the mother cannot affect the sex of the fetus in any way at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

The grandmother produces the father. The father produces the sperm. The sperm determines the sex. The father producing the sperm determines the sex. The grandmother producing the father producing the sperm determines the sex.

This is wrong though.

The grandfather is the one created the father, not the grandmother. The grandmother carried and delivered the father... but the father being a father as opposed to a mother was entirely determined by the sperm from the grandfather.

Women cannot affect the sex of their offspring. Men affect the sex of their offspring. It's pretty random, sure, but it is still true that the sex of offspring is 100% a result of the man in the pairing. This is true for ALL mammals.

It's the opposite for birds. In birds, the female carries two different chromosomes, and the male only carries one type. So for birds, it is the female that determines the sex of the offspring.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not one damn word about men keeping their penis in their pants.

This isn't just a little mistaken. It's somewhere between ideological blindness and insanity. Totally demonstrably false.

I've done it many times. Probably more than once in this thread alone. I've lost track of how many times I've said almost exactly that here on IIDB alone.

It takes two to tango. Men should pay substantial child support if they help produce a child.
Etc.
Etc.


Pretending that nobody has said this is ridiculous. Lots of people, male and female have said it, in multiple ways.
Tom

That's really not the same thing at all. You're conflating "men should help with the finances of raising their children" and "it takes both a sperm and an egg" are very different narratives from "if she doesn't want to risk pregnancy, she just shouldn't have sex".

 

[Emily Lake]

You what bothers me most in this thread? It's that the only posters arguing against Toni's (and my) rhetorical position are all men. Not all of the male posters have done so... but only male posters have.

 

[laughing dog]

[

And I don't think “men get to define how pregnancies go” is the necessary result from”men start pregnancies”. You asked me
You asked because you have poor reading comprehension. Exactly which part of "So according to your logic, " do you have difficulty understanding that induced you to just pretend that part wasn't there when you attempted to paraphrase my argument so carelessly?

The only person exhibiting poor reading skills is you. You made the claim “according to your logic men should get to define how pregnancies go”. Toni’s logic does not necessarily imply that. Instead of referring to your question as illogical I asked my question about your question.

You were not asking me to show my work.

You are mistaken. How about showing your work?

It was not an insulting deflection.

Insinuating someone thinks it is ok to beat their spouse is insulting to most people regardless of your intent.

 

[Toni]

You what bothers me most in this thread? It's that the only posters arguing against Toni's (and my) rhetorical position are all men. Not all of the male posters have done so... but only male posters have.

This is absolutely not surprising. In fact, I’d be astonished if any woman was attempting to argue with our position.

I will say, once again, that it was not my intention to start this derail. In fact, I honestly don’t understand why it’s controversial at all.

 

[Toni]

I may be taking you wrong, but you seem to be deliberately argumentative.

I understand that you didn't choose to make the derail into a thread.

But go back and reread the first post in the thread. Scroll through a few of your own posts in it.

See if you can understand why I find this quote from you so laughably ironic.
Tom

Yeah, I don’t think you know what ironic means. Don’t feel bad. Neither does Alanis Morissette.

 

[Toni]

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.

It’s not an entirely different scenario. Pregnancies happen regardless of consent because a man ( or boy) ejacukated. This fact doesn’t change because one of the parties did not consent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When men want to avoid talking about all pregnancies, not just the ones they wish to acknowledge. The way that men in this thread have attempted to tell me I'm not discussing things correctly when actually I started this conversation.

Men attempting to define conversations along lines that suit them and silence conversation that makes them uncomfortable. Indeed, that is a problem.

You are not compelled to participate. I'm not compelled to post only what you feel is acceptable.

The problem here is there are two categories:

Pregnancies from consensual sex: Both people are equally responsible.

Pregnancies from rape: The man is 100% responsible. This isn't discussed much because almost nobody disagrees.

You are trying to lump these and pin the blame on men in the consensual cases.

 

[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.

It’s not an entirely different scenario. Pregnancies happen regardless of consent because a man ( or boy) ejacukated. This fact doesn’t change because one of the parties did not consent.

We are all familiar with the way the biology works. You have posted it many, many, many times *yawn*.

 

[TomC]

Yeah, I don’t think you know what ironic means. Don’t feel bad. Neither does Alanis Morissette.

I may be taking you wrong, but you seem to be deliberately argumentative.

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I may be taking you wrong, but you seem to be deliberately argumentative.

I understand that you didn't choose to make the derail into a thread.

But go back and reread the first post in the thread. Scroll through a few of your own posts in it.

See if you can understand why I find this quote from you so laughably ironic.
Tom

Yeah, I don’t think you know what ironic means. Don’t feel bad. Neither does Alanis Morissette.

Incoming Alanis defense. Irony includes when the opposite happens of what is said, expected, or imagined.

Some of the events described in 'Ironic' are not ironic but just unfortunate, like a traffic jam when you're already late or good advice that you just didn't take. But many of the events are absolutely ironic: if ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife isn't ironic, then neither is one of the most famous ironic lines in literature 'water, water everywhere / nor any drop to drink'.

 

[Emily Lake]

You what bothers me most in this thread? It's that the only posters arguing against Toni's (and my) rhetorical position are all men. Not all of the male posters have done so... but only male posters have.

This is absolutely not surprising. In fact, I’d be astonished if any woman was attempting to argue with our position.

I will say, once again, that it was not my intention to start this derail. In fact, I honestly don’t understand why it’s controversial at all.

It's controversial because... I dunno, they'd have to put on a rubber and it wouldn't feel as good for them?

 

[Toni]

I may be taking you wrong, but you seem to be deliberately argumentative.

I understand that you didn't choose to make the derail into a thread.

But go back and reread the first post in the thread. Scroll through a few of your own posts in it.

See if you can understand why I find this quote from you so laughably ironic.
Tom

Yeah, I don’t think you know what ironic means. Don’t feel bad. Neither does Alanis Morissette.

Incoming Alanis defense. Irony includes when the opposite happens of what is said, expected, or imagined.

Some of the events described in 'Ironic' are not ironic but just unfortunate, like a traffic jam when you're already late or good advice that you just didn't take. But many of the events are absolutely ironic: if ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife isn't ironic, then neither is one of the most famous ironic lines in literature 'water, water everywhere / nor any drop to drink'.

Not a good analogy.