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

[laughing dog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

You said getting hit by a drunk driver, or some other ridiculous distinction without a difference.

Getting into a car and driving means you run the risk of getting hit by a drunk driver. That is not a ridiculous statement to make.

Your analogy, however, is ridiculous.

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.

Yes, for laughing dog, it is ridiculous to acknowledge events that have a connection to previous events.

 

[Bomb#20]

... I’ve stated a simple fact of biology: every single pregnancy begins with a man ejaculating. That is what causes pregnancy.

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

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." - Lewis Carroll

Toni, you keep saying that over and over. And IIRC you said you're a scientist. So you should know better than to make unscientific claims like that one and try to cloak them in the authority of science. What you are doing here is no different from what Christians are doing when they claim it's a simple fact of biology that a human life begins at conception. Life is a cycle. It goes in a circle. A circle has no beginning and no end. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for picking one event in the life cycle and claiming that that's where the cycle starts. Such claims are metaphysics. They're religion.

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?

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

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

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

But the circumstance of it being necessary does not provide any support for your contentions against Loren, Metaphor, etc. A lot of steps are necessary for a pregnancy. There's a reason you've been singling out that one event and claiming pregnancy "begins" with it and not saying pregnancy "begins" with any of those other steps. Your rhetoric relies on its uniqueness.

A woman can ovulate every month for 40 years or longer and never become pregnant without a man ejaculating. This is true even if her eggs are harvested. It’s true whether or not she consents to any sexual contact. Ever.

And? A male non-rapist can ejaculate every few days for 40 years or longer and never make a woman pregnant without a woman inviting him to insert his semen into her. So by what logic do you draw an inference from the premise of ejaculation being a necessary step to the conclusion that there's some asymmetry between male and female responsibility for any non-rape-induced pregnancy?

Sperm production is equivalent to ovulation in terms of producing gametes.

Ejaculating is necessary to release sperm to fertilize the ova. Ejaculation is voluntary under most circumstances as is the choice of where to ejaculate. A woman can be impregnated whether or not she chooses to have a penis inserted into her vagina and whether or not she agrees to have a man ejaculate inside or near her vagina.

Yes, women can block ovulation by taking the pill, assuming that they are medically able to do so safely, have the finances to pay for the medical visit and prescription, and is willing to tolerate whatever side effects that may result from taking the pill. These side effects can range from beneficial to mild to extremely disruptive.

A man can use a condom, which is inexpensive, available without a prescription and immediately restores his ability to impregnate a woman simply by not using one. Or he can ejaculate not inside or near her vagina.

All of those statements are absolutely factual.

Which of those allegedly absolutely factual statements is supposed to imply an asymmetry in responsibility for non-rape-induced pregnancies?

 

[Bomb#20]

Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.

Well, technically, it happens quite frequently. Lots of men have sperm in their pre-ejaculate fluid. It's one of the reasons withdrawal as a birth control method has such a high failure rate. But perhaps you use "ejaculation" to refer to everything after penetration.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... I’ve stated a simple fact of biology: every single pregnancy begins with a man ejaculating. That is what causes pregnancy.

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

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." - Lewis Carroll

Toni, you keep saying that over and over. And IIRC you said you're a scientist. So you should know better than to make unscientific claims like that one and try to cloak them in the authority of science. What you are doing here is no different from what Christians are doing when they claim it's a simple fact of biology that a human life begins at conception. Life is a cycle. It goes in a circle. A circle has no beginning and no end. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for picking one event in the life cycle and claiming that that's where the cycle starts. Such claims are metaphysics. They're religion.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

So much has been made about consent (which actually makes it not rape), but in the end, if the guy doesn't want to get the woman pregnant, he has the most control of that destiny. No amount of consent counts as pregnancy risk mitigation. If the guy doesn't want her to get pregnant, he can partake in a few different actions to greatly reduce the risk.

The guy is the final firewall on pregnancy risk. The woman can consent all she wants, but it is the guy that lights the fuse.

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

 

[laughing dog]

You said getting hit by a drunk driver, or some other ridiculous distinction without a difference.

Stop making excuses for your false accusation.

Getting into a car and driving means you run the risk of getting hit by a drunk driver. That is not a ridiculous statement to make.

No, it is not. But that is not what you wrote. Do you even pay attention to the content of posts to which you write or respond? I ask, because the prevalence of these straw men makes me wonder if you pay attention to the content of posts to which you write or respond?

Your analogy, however, is ridiculous.

It is a direct application of your reasoning. As any intellectually honest reader knows, if it is ridiculous then so is your claim. You cannot have it both ways - which was my point.

Yes, for laughing dog, it is ridiculous to acknowledge events that have a connection to previous events.

Wow, you just cannot stop with the straw men,

 

[Toni]

Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.

Well, technically, it happens quite frequently. Lots of men have sperm in their pre-ejaculate fluid. It's one of the reasons withdrawal as a birth control method has such a high failure rate. But perhaps you use "ejaculation" to refer to everything after penetration.

Absolutely, the statement: “every unwanted pregnancy begins with some man’s ejaculation” is simplistic as well as factual. As acknowledged elsewhere, ejaculation* is necessary but not sufficient for pregnancy to occur. My intention was never to go into a huge discourse about conception, pregnancy, the mechanics of sex, the physiological processes that need to occur to support a pregnancy, much less oogenesis, spermatogenesis, etc. I assume everyone is familiar with how pregnancy occurs at a basic high school level.

*You are correct: pregnancy can and does occur because there is sperm present in the pre-ejaculatory fluid on the tip of the penis as a part of male arousal. Any penis/vagina contact can result in pregnancy. I didn’t mention that as separate from ejaculation in the original statement because, honestly, it was a statement made to bring attention to the fact that men are not merely passive victims in unwanted pregnancies. They play an absolutely essential, generative role without which pregnancy does not occur.

This is also not about blame or fault. I’m tired of mostly ( but not only) men engaging in slut shaming and hand waving surrounding pregnancy—‘She should have kept her knees together’ and ‘Just have an abortion/ give the baby up for adoption’ —it sure ain’t MY problem! as though pregnancy were some conspiracy to rope men into commitments they do not want to make and causes no medical, physical, emotional, relationship, educational, social or economic consequences—life long consequences! for women. While men can and do just…walk away. Disappear. Throw a package of diapers on the door step and call it good. Call her a slut and bad mother and low life, etc. Sure, she might drag him to court for child support but I’ve seen how that does not work out in real life—including two marriages which failed because the wife refused to terminate a(nother) pregnancy and one ‘father’ who quit his job, moved out of state and took a job managing a property where most of his income was in form of room and board so that he could avoid paying any child support for his children on the brink of adolescence.

Don’t worry: I know some pretty shitty mothers as well. Some men who raised children on or mostly on their own, including ones not biologically theirs. And I know some adoptees who had wonderful childhoods and some who always felt a piece was missing.

Given the current make up of the US Supreme Court and the insanity of some state legislatures, not only are abortion rights being threatened but so are some forms of birth control. Perhaps all birth control.

There needs to be a genuine shift in thinking about how pregnancy begins, a stronger more solid recognition of the role men play reflected in how we treat sex, pregnancy, childbirth, child rearing.

More men are active participants in the lives of their children compared with 50 or even 30 years ago. Social institutions and workplaces have been much slower to adapt to any family model that does not center around a two heterosexual parent + child(ren)/one stay at home or mostly stay at home parent family unit. As though families were assembled in units and not comprised of living breathing human beings.

Much like this thread, this response has gone on far too long.

 

[Emily Lake]

Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. This should not be hard.

Be specific: Which party is accepting the possibility of conception and pregnancy? If conception and pregnancy occurs, who bears that cost?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I assume that you are intelligent and honest enough to acknowledge that a man has the ability to ejaculate into a woman's vagina even if she hasn't consented to it? That a woman can consent to sex WITHOUT the guy ejaculating in her vagina... and the man can ejaculate in her vagina anyway and she has no way to actually stop it from happening?

NOT equal.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

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

 

[Emily Lake]

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

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