• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
Let's try an analogy. Maybe I can put this in terms that resonate with you.

Every anal tear a guy experiences is the result of a man being gay.
Well, I haven't even read this analogy and I know that's wrong. There are heterosexual men who request to be pegged by their female partners. Indeed, I'd wager that the vast majority of emergency room presentations for foreign objects in anuses are adult heterosexual men who put the objects in themselves.

Anal tearing is a risk with anal sex. The risk is increased if the anal sex is rough, or if there isn't sufficient lubrication. Obviously, not all anal sex will result in tearing. And also obviously, it takes two to engage in anal sex, so it's consensual.

Is it the responsibility of the bottom to ensure that the top doesn't get rough? Is it the responsibility of the bottom to ensure that the top uses sufficient lube and adds more as needed to stay safe?

Even if the bottom takes all the right steps - tells their partner to use lots of lube, insists on him not being rough, etc. - if tearing occurs, that harm is born entirely by the bottom, isn't it? If the bottom takes all the responsible steps he can, and still ends up torn, who is responsible for that tear?
Your analogy is ambiguous. Did the top ignore instructions? Did the top get carried away? Or did the top do everything that was agreed to and only that? It seems to me when you agree to receptive anal intercourse you are or should be aware that it can hurt or damage you. If you go ahead and consent, in what universe have you not accepted that risk? In what universe is one party to blame but not the other who equally participated in the action causing the tear?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.
Your "don't know what the use is but I am certain it's wrong" is a great example of pure ignorance(or bigotry) in action.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Evidently you don't want to hear that but for your eggs, you would never have fallen pregnant.

"Fallen pregnant". Because the woman did that to herself, right? Because she's the one who failed to be responsible about it? Yep. She "fell pregnant". FFS, you're half a step away from "got herself knocked up".
A woman engaged in consensual behaviour that caused her to be pregnant.

Why do you appear so hostile to the fact that eggs are as necessary as sperm in creating a pregnancy? I honestly don't understand it.
Any hostility on my part is purely imaginary.

Male hostility to the simple statement: Every pregnancy is the result of a man ejaculating, OTOH: That’s pretty substantial.
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.
Your "don't know what the use is but I am certain it's wrong" is a great example of pure ignorance(or bigotry) in action.
It's satire, laughing dog, and your inability to recognise it is par for the course.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.
Your "don't know what the use is but I am certain it's wrong" is a great example of pure ignorance(or bigotry) in action.
It's satire, laughing dog, and your inability to recognise it is par for the course.
If it is satire (which I doubt), it is extremely shitty satire, which is your MO.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Evidently you don't want to hear that but for your eggs, you would never have fallen pregnant.

"Fallen pregnant". Because the woman did that to herself, right? Because she's the one who failed to be responsible about it? Yep. She "fell pregnant". FFS, you're half a step away from "got herself knocked up".
A woman engaged in consensual behaviour that caused her to be pregnant.

Why do you appear so hostile to the fact that eggs are as necessary as sperm in creating a pregnancy? I honestly don't understand it.
Any hostility on my part is purely imaginary.

Male hostility to the simple statement: Every pregnancy is the result of a man ejaculating, OTOH: That’s pretty substantial.
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
Ovulation is involuntary.
Sperm production is involuntary.

Consensual penis-in-vagina sex is voluntary.

Conceptions that result from consensual penis-in-vagina are as much the 'fault' or 'responsibility' of the man as the woman. I don't know why this is hard for you to deal with.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.
Your "don't know what the use is but I am certain it's wrong" is a great example of pure ignorance(or bigotry) in action.
It's satire, laughing dog, and your inability to recognise it is par for the course.
If it is satire (which I doubt), it is extremely shitty satire, which is your MO.
laughing dog, the fact that you cannot detect something obviously satirical ("I don't know what that word means, but I know you are using it wrong") sounds like a you problem.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
laughing dog, the fact that you cannot detect something obviously satirical ("I don't know what that word means, but I know you are using it wrong") sounds like a you problem.
Oh Metaphor, the obvious interpretation s that your "satire" (of what) is so aptly characterizes your positions is that you have the problem.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Evidently you don't want to hear that but for your eggs, you would never have fallen pregnant.

"Fallen pregnant". Because the woman did that to herself, right? Because she's the one who failed to be responsible about it? Yep. She "fell pregnant". FFS, you're half a step away from "got herself knocked up".
A woman engaged in consensual behaviour that caused her to be pregnant.

Why do you appear so hostile to the fact that eggs are as necessary as sperm in creating a pregnancy? I honestly don't understand it.
Any hostility on my part is purely imaginary.

Male hostility to the simple statement: Every pregnancy is the result of a man ejaculating, OTOH: That’s pretty substantial.
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
Ovulation is involuntary.
Sperm production is involuntary.

Consensual penis-in-vagina sex is voluntary.

Conceptions that result from consensual penis-in-vagina are as much the 'fault' or 'responsibility' of the man as the woman. I don't know why this is hard for you to deal with.
Except that voluntary sex does not necessarily mean voluntary consent to bear the physical risk of pregnancy - which is one of Toni's obvious points that you seem unable to grasp. Because if you did, you would not feel the need to repeat the same off-point statements.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
laughing dog, the fact that you cannot detect something obviously satirical ("I don't know what that word means, but I know you are using it wrong") sounds like a you problem.
Oh Metaphor, the obvious interpretation s that your "satire" (of what) is so aptly characterizes your positions is that you have the problem.
Sure luv.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Evidently you don't want to hear that but for your eggs, you would never have fallen pregnant.

"Fallen pregnant". Because the woman did that to herself, right? Because she's the one who failed to be responsible about it? Yep. She "fell pregnant". FFS, you're half a step away from "got herself knocked up".
A woman engaged in consensual behaviour that caused her to be pregnant.

Why do you appear so hostile to the fact that eggs are as necessary as sperm in creating a pregnancy? I honestly don't understand it.
Any hostility on my part is purely imaginary.

Male hostility to the simple statement: Every pregnancy is the result of a man ejaculating, OTOH: That’s pretty substantial.
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
Ovulation is involuntary.
Sperm production is involuntary.

Consensual penis-in-vagina sex is voluntary.

Conceptions that result from consensual penis-in-vagina are as much the 'fault' or 'responsibility' of the man as the woman. I don't know why this is hard for you to deal with.
Except that voluntary sex does not necessarily mean voluntary consent to bear the physical risk of pregnancy
Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. This should not be hard.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy.
Except, of course, there is no possibility for bearing the possibility of pregnancy on the part of the man. Which is Toni's entire point that you appear incapable of grasping.

Moreover, saying voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex meanss accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy is is like saying getting into a car is accepting the possibility of getting killed by a drunk driver. Both statements are incredibly insensitive and moronic.

This should not be hard.
Apparently for you, it is.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,423
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
Ovulation is involuntary.
Sperm production is involuntary.
That is daft. This is about sperm projection, not sperm production.
Consensual penis-in-vagina sex is voluntary.
Penis in the vagina isn't a cause of pregnancy. There is one more step.
Conceptions that result from consensual penis-in-vagina are as much the 'fault' or 'responsibility' of the man as the woman. I don't know why this is hard for you to deal with.
This is effectively saying guy just has to ejaculate in the woman, if a woman consents. That a guy is powerless to do otherwise. If a guy doesn't want to impregnate a woman, there are options to greatly reduce that risk.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,290
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Evidently you don't want to hear that but for your eggs, you would never have fallen pregnant.

"Fallen pregnant". Because the woman did that to herself, right? Because she's the one who failed to be responsible about it? Yep. She "fell pregnant". FFS, you're half a step away from "got herself knocked up".
A woman engaged in consensual behaviour that caused her to be pregnant.

Why do you appear so hostile to the fact that eggs are as necessary as sperm in creating a pregnancy? I honestly don't understand it.
Any hostility on my part is purely imaginary.

Male hostility to the simple statement: Every pregnancy is the result of a man ejaculating, OTOH: That’s pretty substantial.
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
Ovulation is involuntary.
Sperm production is involuntary.

Consensual penis-in-vagina sex is voluntary.

Conceptions that result from consensual penis-in-vagina are as much the 'fault' or 'responsibility' of the man as the woman. I don't know why this is hard for you to deal with.
I have no trouble with ‘dealing’ with it.

I made a simple declarative sentence: Every unwanted pregnancy begins with some man’s ejaculation.

I don’t know why men are having such a hard time dealing with that fact. Or the fact that I wrote it. I’d think men would be delighted with the credit.
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
No, I’m not ‘blaming’ anyone. I stated a simple fact.

Sorry you can’t or won’t deal with it.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Evidently you don't want to hear that but for your eggs, you would never have fallen pregnant.

"Fallen pregnant". Because the woman did that to herself, right? Because she's the one who failed to be responsible about it? Yep. She "fell pregnant". FFS, you're half a step away from "got herself knocked up".
A woman engaged in consensual behaviour that caused her to be pregnant.

Why do you appear so hostile to the fact that eggs are as necessary as sperm in creating a pregnancy? I honestly don't understand it.
Any hostility on my part is purely imaginary.

Male hostility to the simple statement: Every pregnancy is the result of a man ejaculating, OTOH: That’s pretty substantial.
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
Ovulation is involuntary.
Sperm production is involuntary.

Consensual penis-in-vagina sex is voluntary.

Conceptions that result from consensual penis-in-vagina are as much the 'fault' or 'responsibility' of the man as the woman. I don't know why this is hard for you to deal with.
Except that voluntary sex does not necessarily mean voluntary consent to bear the physical risk of pregnancy
Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. This should not be hard.
Actually, at least somewhat hard is a prerequisite .
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,290
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
Man--consented to ejaculating in her vagina.
Woman--consented to having her vagina ejaculated into.

Equal.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Evidently you don't want to hear that but for your eggs, you would never have fallen pregnant.

"Fallen pregnant". Because the woman did that to herself, right? Because she's the one who failed to be responsible about it? Yep. She "fell pregnant". FFS, you're half a step away from "got herself knocked up".
A woman engaged in consensual behaviour that caused her to be pregnant.

Why do you appear so hostile to the fact that eggs are as necessary as sperm in creating a pregnancy? I honestly don't understand it.
Any hostility on my part is purely imaginary.

Male hostility to the simple statement: Every pregnancy is the result of a man ejaculating, OTOH: That’s pretty substantial.
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
Ovulation is involuntary.
Sperm production is involuntary.

Consensual penis-in-vagina sex is voluntary.

Conceptions that result from consensual penis-in-vagina are as much the 'fault' or 'responsibility' of the man as the woman. I don't know why this is hard for you to deal with.
Ejaculation is voluntary. You forgot that part.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy.
Except, of course, there is no possibility for bearing the possibility of pregnancy on the part of the man. Which is Toni's entire point that you appear incapable of grasping.
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.

Moreover, saying voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex meanss accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy is is like saying getting into a car is accepting the possibility of getting killed by a drunk driver. Both statements are incredibly insensitive and moronic.
Your analogy is insensitive and moronic, not my statement of fact.

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.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Evidently you don't want to hear that but for your eggs, you would never have fallen pregnant.

"Fallen pregnant". Because the woman did that to herself, right? Because she's the one who failed to be responsible about it? Yep. She "fell pregnant". FFS, you're half a step away from "got herself knocked up".
A woman engaged in consensual behaviour that caused her to be pregnant.

Why do you appear so hostile to the fact that eggs are as necessary as sperm in creating a pregnancy? I honestly don't understand it.
Any hostility on my part is purely imaginary.

Male hostility to the simple statement: Every pregnancy is the result of a man ejaculating, OTOH: That’s pretty substantial.
Every pregnancy is the result of a woman ovulating.
So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.
No, you don't have it. I don't know what your use of the greater than symbol means, but I'm certain it's wrong.

Every conception is the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Unless nonconsent is involved, she is as responsible for the conception as the man is.
That does not change the FACT that if a man did not ejaculate, there would be no pregnancy.

Ovulation is involuntary.

Ejaculation is voluntary.
Ovulation is involuntary.
Sperm production is involuntary.

Consensual penis-in-vagina sex is voluntary.

Conceptions that result from consensual penis-in-vagina are as much the 'fault' or 'responsibility' of the man as the woman. I don't know why this is hard for you to deal with.
Ejaculation is voluntary. You forgot that part.
Consenting to ejaculate is voluntary. You forgot that part.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy.
Except, of course, there is no possibility for bearing the possibility of pregnancy on the part of the man. Which is Toni's entire point that you appear incapable of grasping.
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.
You are
Moreover, saying voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex meanss accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy is is like saying getting into a car is accepting the possibility of getting killed by a drunk driver. Both statements are incredibly insensitive and moronic.
Your analogy is insensitive and moronic, not my statement of fact.
You made no statement of act. The principle is exactly the same: agreeing to an action that has the possibility of an unwanted action. Which means your claim is insensitive and moronic.
It beggars belief that this is still being debated.
It does. So why are you still on bout it?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
Oy gevalt. First, you described ejaculations as voluntary. They are not all 'voluntary'. I already explained that teenage boys can have nocturnal emissions that are not 'voluntary'.

But, now you've changed the goalposts. I did not say pregnancy was not possible without ejaculation (though I don't know if sperm can be harvested without it). But any woman who voluntarily allows ejaculate into her vagina is as responsible for any conception that takes place as the ejaculator.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy.
Except, of course, there is no possibility for bearing the possibility of pregnancy on the part of the man. Which is Toni's entire point that you appear incapable of grasping.
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.
You are
Moreover, saying voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex meanss accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy is is like saying getting into a car is accepting the possibility of getting killed by a drunk driver. Both statements are incredibly insensitive and moronic.
Your analogy is insensitive and moronic, not my statement of fact.
You made no statement of act. The principle is exactly the same: agreeing to an action that has the possibility of an unwanted action. Which means your claim is insensitive and moronic.
It beggars belief that this is still being debated.
It does. So why are you still on bout it?
I guess if you believe pregnancies are the fault and responsibility of "men", and not equally the fault and responsibility of the two individuals who consented to the actions necessary for the pregnancy, then it is indeed pointless to debate you.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
I never made the claim. I simply made equally pertinent counter claims.

For example, a woman can rape a 13 year old boy, and his ejaculation could lead to her pregnancy. I suppose under your rubric, his ejaculation leads to his sole culpability.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
I never made the claim. I simply made equally pertinent counter claims.

For example, a woman can rape a 13 year old boy, and his ejaculation could lead to her pregnancy. I suppose under your rubric, his ejaculation leads to his sole culpability.
I don't know how many times I need to explain this: I do not see 'blame' or 'culpability' with relation to pregnancy. That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

All I am saying is that ejaculation is a prerequisite to pregnancy. If you know of an exception, please let us know.

I cannot begin to tell you how disgusting I find the idea of anyone having sex with a 13 year old to be or for anyone to rape a child--forcibly or as defined by statute as underage. Sex/gender of either party does nothing to make it less disgusting and horrific.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
Oy gevalt. First, you described ejaculations as voluntary. They are not all 'voluntary'. I already explained that teenage boys can have nocturnal emissions that are not 'voluntary'.

But, now you've changed the goalposts. I did not say pregnancy was not possible without ejaculation (though I don't know if sperm can be harvested without it). But any woman who voluntarily allows ejaculate into her vagina is as responsible for any conception that takes place as the ejaculator.
From the OP (of this interminable derail which I truly regret and never intended to create):

Me:
Every unwanted pregnancy begins with some man’s ejaculation.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that every pregnancy (wanted or not) begins with some male ejaculating. 13 year old boys have impregnated girls and women, however unfortunate and despicable and illegal it is for a 13 year old to have sex with an adult.

I suppose it is vaguely possible that someone could be present when a boy has a wet dream, scoop up the ejaculate and impregnate a woman --and probably has happened--but that seems extremely remote.

However, I will say how happy I am that so many men have stepped up to admit that any pregnancy that occurs is the result of BOTH parties (exceptions obviously for rape, plus that whole Jane the Virgin plotline, which pregnancy still resulted from a man ejaculating).

Even in horrific situations such as rape (male or female victim) every pregnancy begins with some male person's ejaculation.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I guess if you believe pregnancies are the fault and responsibility of "men", and not equally the fault and responsibility of the two individuals who consented to the actions necessary for the pregnancy, then it is indeed pointless to debate you.
It is not possible to debate with people like you who confuse their moral judgments with fact. You are babbling on about a straw men. Consenting to have sex with ejaculations is no more consenting to get pregnant than getting into a car is consenting to get killed by a drunk driver. Furthermore, claiming that pregnancies cannot occur without an ejaculation is not assessing blame or responsibility (whatever you mean by that), but stating the obvious for almost every pregnancy*** in the world Why some men posters are unable to grasp such a simple and liberating idea is truly fascinating. For some obscure reason, they feel that "men" are under some attack.

The reality is that pregnant women are the only ones who bear the physical responsibility for carrying an embryo to its ultimate end (termination or birth). They are only ones with that responsibility. They are the only ones who should be able to decide what to do with their bodies and the attendant physical and health risks, let alone the emotional ones as well. Yet in this world (and, indeed, this forum), there are men who feel they have the right to deny women the choices they need in order to cope and survive a pregnancy.

Ironically, some of those men who blather on about the "equal" responsibility for the pregnancy go on to deny the attendant equal responsibility for supporting the women during that pregnancy and/or the child after birth.

""" I allow for the possibility of pregnancy caused by sperm obtained by surgery which is possible but I suspect is highly infrequent (if at all).
 
Last edited:

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,556
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't know how many times I need to explain this: I do not see 'blame' or 'culpability' with relation to pregnancy. That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

*ahem*

But it doesn’t work ‘both ways.’ Throughout western history, women have been ‘blamed’ and punished for getting pregnant, fir not ‘having self control.’ It’s time the blame gets laid at the correct door: that of people who ejaculate.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I don't know how many times I need to explain this: I do not see 'blame' or 'culpability' with relation to pregnancy. That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

*ahem*

But it doesn’t work ‘both ways.’ Throughout western history, women have been ‘blamed’ and punished for getting pregnant, fir not ‘having self control.’ It’s time the blame gets laid at the correct door: that of people who ejaculate.
Touché.

However, I stand by the fact that women have been blamed for getting pregnant historically and are still being blamed today for getting pregnant.

I do not associate blame with pregnancy. It’s a natural logical consequence arising from ejaculation, usually in or near a vagina but sometimes into a sample cup.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
I never made the claim. I simply made equally pertinent counter claims.

For example, a woman can rape a 13 year old boy, and his ejaculation could lead to her pregnancy. I suppose under your rubric, his ejaculation leads to his sole culpability.
I don't know how many times I need to explain this: I do not see 'blame' or 'culpability' with relation to pregnancy. That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

All I am saying is that ejaculation is a prerequisite to pregnancy. If you know of an exception, please let us know.
Well, it's kind of more than I needed to learn about ejaculate today, but ejaculation is not a prerequisite to pregnancy, as men with no sperm in their ejaculate (azoospermia) can have sperm retrieved directly from the testis or epididymis (for IVF purposes, say).
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I guess if you believe pregnancies are the fault and responsibility of "men", and not equally the fault and responsibility of the two individuals who consented to the actions necessary for the pregnancy, then it is indeed pointless to debate you.
It is not possible to debate with people like you who confuse their moral judgments with fact.
What moral judgment? What one earth are you talking about?

You are babbling on about a straw men. Consenting to have sex with ejaculations is no more consenting to get pregnant than getting into a car is consenting to get killed by a drunk driver.
Your analogy is ridiculous, but I'll correct IT. Mutual consent to sexual activity that involves small motile gametes and large sessile gametes meeting can have pregnancy as a result, and both parties were necessary to that pregnancy. It's like a couple drinking all day, then deciding to go joyriding while they are drunk, and then you explaining they did not consent to the accident they get into. They didn't consent to it but their voluntary actions increased the likelihood.

Also, conception is not a car crash, Jesus.

Furthermore, claiming that pregnancies cannot occur without an ejaculation is not assessing blame or responsibility (whatever you mean by that), but stating the obvious for almost every pregnancy*** in the world Why some men posters are unable to grasp such a simple and liberating idea is truly fascinating. For some obscure reason, they feel that "men" are under some attack.

The reality is that pregnant women are the only ones who bear the physical responsibility for carrying an embryo to its ultimate end (termination or birth). They are only ones with that responsibility. They are the only ones who should be able to decide what to do with their bodies and the attendant physical and health risks, let alone the emotional ones as well. Yet in this world (and, indeed, this forum), there are men who feel they have the right to deny women the choices they need in order to cope and survive a pregnancy.
Um, okay. So...what, exactly? What do you want me to do about it? Deny that sperm and ova are each necessary but not sufficient for pregnancy?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I guess if you believe pregnancies are the fault and responsibility of "men", and not equally the fault and responsibility of the two individuals who consented to the actions necessary for the pregnancy, then it is indeed pointless to debate you.
It is not possible to debate with people like you who confuse their moral judgments with fact.
What moral judgment? What one earth are you talking about?
You are the one talking about fault and responsibility.
You are babbling on about a straw men. Consenting to have sex with ejaculations is no more consenting to get pregnant than getting into a car is consenting to get killed by a drunk driver.
Your analogy is ridiculous, but I'll correct IT. Mutual consent to sexual activity that involves small motile gametes and large sessile gametes meeting can have pregnancy as a result, and both parties were necessary to that pregnancy. It's like a couple drinking all day, then deciding to go joyriding while they are drunk, and then you explaining they did not consent to the accident they get into. They didn't consent to it but their voluntary actions increased the likelihood.
The voluntary action of getting into a car increases the likelihood of being hit by a drunk driver, regardless of whether one is drunk or not. Applying your "reasoning" means getting into a car is consenting to get hit by a drunk driver. Getting pregnant from sex is a low probability event just like getting hit by a drunk driver.


Also, conception is not a car crash, Jesus.
No one said it was. Do try to pay attention, it might help you come up with less stupid replies.
Um, okay. So...what, exactly? What do you want me to do about it? Deny that sperm and ova are each necessary but not sufficient for pregnancy?
Stop repeating your stupid irrelevant claims about consenting to get pregnant.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
I never made the claim. I simply made equally pertinent counter claims.

For example, a woman can rape a 13 year old boy, and his ejaculation could lead to her pregnancy. I suppose under your rubric, his ejaculation leads to his sole culpability.
I don't know how many times I need to explain this: I do not see 'blame' or 'culpability' with relation to pregnancy. That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

All I am saying is that ejaculation is a prerequisite to pregnancy. If you know of an exception, please let us know.
Well, it's kind of more than I needed to learn about ejaculate today, but ejaculation is not a prerequisite to pregnancy, as men with no sperm in their ejaculate (azoospermia) can have sperm retrieved directly from the testis or epididymis (for IVF purposes, say).
In other words, retrieving sperm directly from the testes is performed with the express intention of causing pregnancy. This is something a man does willingly, right? It’s a CHOICE he makes.

Btw, thanks for the link. I hadn’t gotten around to checking out med. sites,
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I guess if you believe pregnancies are the fault and responsibility of "men", and not equally the fault and responsibility of the two individuals who consented to the actions necessary for the pregnancy, then it is indeed pointless to debate you.
It is not possible to debate with people like you who confuse their moral judgments with fact.
What moral judgment? What one earth are you talking about?
You are the one talking about fault and responsibility.
Yeah, that's what the thread is called, mate.

You are babbling on about a straw men. Consenting to have sex with ejaculations is no more consenting to get pregnant than getting into a car is consenting to get killed by a drunk driver.
Your analogy is ridiculous, but I'll correct IT. Mutual consent to sexual activity that involves small motile gametes and large sessile gametes meeting can have pregnancy as a result, and both parties were necessary to that pregnancy. It's like a couple drinking all day, then deciding to go joyriding while they are drunk, and then you explaining they did not consent to the accident they get into. They didn't consent to it but their voluntary actions increased the likelihood.
The voluntary action of getting into a car increases the likelihood of being hit by a drunk driver, regardless of whether one is drunk or not. Applying your "reasoning" means getting into a car is consenting to get hit by a drunk driver. Getting pregnant from sex is a low probability event just like getting hit by a drunk driver.
I did not use the word 'consent' with regard to the conception but that activities that led to it.

Also, conception is not a car crash, Jesus.
No one said it was. Do try to pay attention, it might help you come up with less stupid replies.
Your analogy talked about being killed by a drunk driver, as if that were the 'conception'. I'm sorry your analogy was ridiculous.

Um, okay. So...what, exactly? What do you want me to do about it? Deny that sperm and ova are each necessary but not sufficient for pregnancy?
Stop repeating your stupid irrelevant claims about consenting to get pregnant.
I did not say a woman 'consented' to getting pregnant. That is your own delusion.

 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
I never made the claim. I simply made equally pertinent counter claims.

For example, a woman can rape a 13 year old boy, and his ejaculation could lead to her pregnancy. I suppose under your rubric, his ejaculation leads to his sole culpability.
I don't know how many times I need to explain this: I do not see 'blame' or 'culpability' with relation to pregnancy. That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

All I am saying is that ejaculation is a prerequisite to pregnancy. If you know of an exception, please let us know.
Well, it's kind of more than I needed to learn about ejaculate today, but ejaculation is not a prerequisite to pregnancy, as men with no sperm in their ejaculate (azoospermia) can have sperm retrieved directly from the testis or epididymis (for IVF purposes, say).
In other words, retrieving sperm directly from the testes is performed with the express intention of causing pregnancy.
Well, no. I don't know all the reasons why you might want it to be done.

This is something a man does willingly, right? It’s a CHOICE he makes.
I would assume so, except when it isn't. Sperm was removed from my late brother's body while he was in a coma and dying, at the request of his de facto. She never--thank small mercies--used it, however.

Btw, thanks for the link. I hadn’t gotten around to checking out med. sites,
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Yeah, that's what the thread is called, mate.
There is no fault in the title.
I did not use the word 'consent' with regard to the conception but that activities that led to it.
No one said you did. You keep defending straw men. Getting into the car is an activity to leads to getting hit by the drunk driver.
Your analogy talked about being killed by a drunk driver, as if that were the 'conception'.
No, your "Ah, the feigning obtuseness" defense fails.
Um, okay. So...what, exactly? What do you want me to do about it? Deny that sperm and ova are each necessary but not sufficient for pregnancy?
Stop repeating your stupid irrelevant claims about consenting to get pregnant.
I did not say a woman 'consented' to getting pregnant. That is your own delusion.
Ah, your boring pedantry defense fails yet again.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Yeah, that's what the thread is called, mate.
There is no fault in the title.
I did not use the word 'consent' with regard to the conception but that activities that led to it.
No one said you did. You keep defending straw men. Getting into the car is an activity to leads to getting hit by the drunk driver.
Your analogy talked about being killed by a drunk driver, as if that were the 'conception'.
No, your "Ah, the feigning obtuseness" defense fails.
Um, okay. So...what, exactly? What do you want me to do about it? Deny that sperm and ova are each necessary but not sufficient for pregnancy?
Stop repeating your stupid irrelevant claims about consenting to get pregnant.
I did not say a woman 'consented' to getting pregnant. That is your own delusion.
Ah, your boring pedantry defense fails yet again.
Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.

The fact that not anywhere can you see me say a woman 'consented' to pregnancy (as if you can 'consent' to the laws of biochemistry) is proof positive you don't actually give a shit about what I say, or mean. You appear to only give a shit about attacking me with straw men.

 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
You say you don't want to absolve the woman, but then turn right around and blame the man.
Who’s blaming the man?

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.
Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.
I never made the claim. I simply made equally pertinent counter claims.

For example, a woman can rape a 13 year old boy, and his ejaculation could lead to her pregnancy. I suppose under your rubric, his ejaculation leads to his sole culpability.
I don't know how many times I need to explain this: I do not see 'blame' or 'culpability' with relation to pregnancy. That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

All I am saying is that ejaculation is a prerequisite to pregnancy. If you know of an exception, please let us know.
Well, it's kind of more than I needed to learn about ejaculate today, but ejaculation is not a prerequisite to pregnancy, as men with no sperm in their ejaculate (azoospermia) can have sperm retrieved directly from the testis or epididymis (for IVF purposes, say).
In other words, retrieving sperm directly from the testes is performed with the express intention of causing pregnancy.
Well, no. I don't know all the reasons why you might want it to be done.

This is something a man does willingly, right? It’s a CHOICE he makes.
I would assume so, except when it isn't. Sperm was removed from my late brother's body while he was in a coma and dying, at the request of his de facto. She never--thank small mercies--used it, however.

Btw, thanks for the link. I hadn’t gotten around to checking out med. sites,
I’m sorry about your brother. That must have been very difficult for all of you. I’m not certain of the laws in Australia but I am guessing that consent is assumed in an intimate relationship. Or that his significant other had authorization to make medical decisions. My condolences.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,165
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I guess if you believe pregnancies are the fault and responsibility of "men", and not equally the fault and responsibility of the two individuals who consented to the actions necessary for the pregnancy, then it is indeed pointless to debate you.
It is not possible to debate with people like you who confuse their moral judgments with fact.
What moral judgment? What one earth are you talking about?
You are the one talking about fault and responsibility.
Yeah, that's what the thread is called, mate.

You are babbling on about a straw men. Consenting to have sex with ejaculations is no more consenting to get pregnant than getting into a car is consenting to get killed by a drunk driver.
Your analogy is ridiculous, but I'll correct IT. Mutual consent to sexual activity that involves small motile gametes and large sessile gametes meeting can have pregnancy as a result, and both parties were necessary to that pregnancy. It's like a couple drinking all day, then deciding to go joyriding while they are drunk, and then you explaining they did not consent to the accident they get into. They didn't consent to it but their voluntary actions increased the likelihood.
The voluntary action of getting into a car increases the likelihood of being hit by a drunk driver, regardless of whether one is drunk or not. Applying your "reasoning" means getting into a car is consenting to get hit by a drunk driver. Getting pregnant from sex is a low probability event just like getting hit by a drunk driver.
I did not use the word 'consent' with regard to the conception but that activities that led to it.

Also, conception is not a car crash, Jesus.
No one said it was. Do try to pay attention, it might help you come up with less stupid replies.
Your analogy talked about being killed by a drunk driver, as if that were the 'conception'. I'm sorry your analogy was ridiculous.

Um, okay. So...what, exactly? What do you want me to do about it? Deny that sperm and ova are each necessary but not sufficient for pregnancy?
Stop repeating your stupid irrelevant claims about consenting to get pregnant.
I did not say a woman 'consented' to getting pregnant. That is your own delusion.

A small notation: I did not choose the title of this thread. It was chosen by one of the kids.

Again, it was never my intention to cause this accursed derail thread. My apologies to all.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.
No one said it was. You are allowed to use pedantry and straw men to "defend" yourself. You are allowed to make false accusations to defend yourself. The issue is not defense but your methods.


 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.
No one said it was. You are allowed to use pedantry and straw men to "defend" yourself. You are allowed to make false accusations to defend yourself. The issue is not defense but your methods.
It is not 'pedantic' to call out your falsehoods, like your falsehood that merely acknowledging that 'voluntary events by both actors can lead to pregnancy' is the same as 'consenting' to pregnancy.

You won't apologise, I'm sure, but your falsehoods about my position are on display for all to see.

 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.
No one said it was. You are allowed to use pedantry and straw men to "defend" yourself. You are allowed to make false accusations to defend yourself. The issue is not defense but your methods.
It is not 'pedantic' to call out your falsehoods, like your falsehood that merely acknowledging that 'voluntary events by both actors can lead to pregnancy' is the same as 'consenting' to pregnancy.
No one said it was. Once again, it is the method not the defense. While I am no longer surprised by your unwillingness or inability to grasp such a distinction, it is a bit dismaying and predictably boring.

You know perfectly well this line of discussion began with your claim that
"Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. " Using your reasoning, voluntary consenting to getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver". Which clearly illustrates the unreasonableness of your use of the term "consent". to any reasonably literate coherent and intellectually honest discussant.


You won't apologise, I'm sure, but your falsehoods about my position are on display for all to see.
Ah, the false accusation once again method.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,934
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.
No one said it was. You are allowed to use pedantry and straw men to "defend" yourself. You are allowed to make false accusations to defend yourself. The issue is not defense but your methods.
It is not 'pedantic' to call out your falsehoods, like your falsehood that merely acknowledging that 'voluntary events by both actors can lead to pregnancy' is the same as 'consenting' to pregnancy.
No one said it was. Once again, it is the method not the defense. While I am no longer surprised by your unwillingness or inability to grasp such a distinction, it is a bit dismaying and predictably boring.

You know perfectly well this line of discussion began with your claim that
"Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. " Using your reasoning, voluntary consenting to getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver". Which clearly illustrates the unreasonableness of your use of the term "consent". to any reasonably literate coherent and intellectually honest discussant.
Yes, getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting into a car accident.

If you think that means I said or implied that that means you 'consented' to a car accident, your literacy and reasoning is extremely poor.

 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,282
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
If you disagree, show your work. By all means, please explain to the board how your claim "every single pregnancy begins with a man ejaculating" is falsifiable. If that's a "fact of biology", then what biological experiment could we possibly do that would falsify your claim if it were to come out a certain way? If Metaphor says a pregnancy begins with an ovulation and you say it begins with an ejaculation and Tom says it begins with a fertilization and Emily says it begins with an implantation, what distinguishable predictions of observable events are implied by all your distinct claims about what every single pregnancy begins with?
Aren't they all true? Pregnancy begins with an ovulation, an ejaculation, fertilisation and an implantation.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and with its tenth step, and with it's thirteenth step, and with it's four hundred and eighth step." - Lao Tsu's not-so-famous brother

A process does not begin four times unless the first three were failures and the process had to be restarted over and over. If a pregnancy began with ejaculation then it has already begun by the time fertilization occurs.

Surely the obvious point is that ejaculation is a necessary part of causing a pregnancy and it's a part of a pregnancy that the father must contribute.
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.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.
No one said it was. You are allowed to use pedantry and straw men to "defend" yourself. You are allowed to make false accusations to defend yourself. The issue is not defense but your methods.
It is not 'pedantic' to call out your falsehoods, like your falsehood that merely acknowledging that 'voluntary events by both actors can lead to pregnancy' is the same as 'consenting' to pregnancy.
No one said it was. Once again, it is the method not the defense. While I am no longer surprised by your unwillingness or inability to grasp such a distinction, it is a bit dismaying and predictably boring.

You know perfectly well this line of discussion began with your claim that
"Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. " Using your reasoning, voluntary consenting to getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver". Which clearly illustrates the unreasonableness of your use of the term "consent". to any reasonably literate coherent and intellectually honest discussant.
Yes, getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting into a car accident.

If you think that means I said or implied that that means you 'consented' to a car accident, your literacy and reasoning is extremely poor.
Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.
No one said it was. You are allowed to use pedantry and straw men to "defend" yourself. You are allowed to make false accusations to defend yourself. The issue is not defense but your methods.
It is not 'pedantic' to call out your falsehoods, like your falsehood that merely acknowledging that 'voluntary events by both actors can lead to pregnancy' is the same as 'consenting' to pregnancy.
No one said it was. Once again, it is the method not the defense. While I am no longer surprised by your unwillingness or inability to grasp such a distinction, it is a bit dismaying and predictably boring.

You know perfectly well this line of discussion began with your claim that
"Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. " Using your reasoning, voluntary consenting to getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver". Which clearly illustrates the unreasonableness of your use of the term "consent". to any reasonably literate coherent and intellectually honest discussant.
Yes, getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting into a car accident.
I didn't write getting into a car accident. It seems once again, your literacy and reasoning is extremely poor.

But returning to your "reasoning", I give you credit - you are consistent in your ridiculousness.




 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom