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

[Metaphor]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

This thread is like an 1980's comedy where a woman in labour starts screaming at her husband "YOU DID THIS TO ME!"

 

[Toni]

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

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

Why do you think you know what I want?

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

But that all begins when a man ejaculates.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

 

[TSwizzle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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,