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

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TSwizzle]

Edited*

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bomb#20]

Absolutely, the statement: “every unwanted pregnancy begins with some man’s ejaculation” is simplistic as well as factual. ...
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. ...

This brings up a corollary. The conventional definition of "pregnancy" has it beginning with implantation. Under that definition, a birth control method like an IUD that prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum doesn't cause an abortion, since there was never a pregnancy for it to end. But if somebody argues that fertilization begins a pregnancy then he'll classify an IUD as an abortifacient. This is an important practical distinction in a country that's heading for increasing legal obstacles to abortion.

Point being, you might want to think long and hard before you throw around your rhetoric about how pregnancy begins with ejaculation with wild abandon. If that becomes the prevalent point of view, then the pro-forced-birth lobby is going to run with it, and declare spermicide to be a method of abortion instead of a method of contraception. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Men can greatly increase the risks of not getting women pregnant by not releasing a bunch of preg-bots in the woman. They don't need to move to a monastery.

 

[Toni]

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".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

No, the context is clear, it's in red and large font. Do not take my comments out of context, I am not talking about pregnancies that happen with incidents of rape.

You can play all the word games you like.

No word games from me. Just your predictable bait and switch derail.

I’m not obligated to play along.

You must be as there is no reason for you to respond with a derail.

Hey, this entire thread is MY derail.

You want to narrow down sex to only completely consensual sex between adults (I'm presuming the last part but maybe that's not what you meant).

Some of us refuse to discount lack of consent as a factor in pregnancy.

 

[laughing dog]

Point being, you might want to think long and hard before you throw around your rhetoric about how pregnancy begins with ejaculation with wild abandon. If that becomes the prevalent point of view, then the pro-forced-birth lobby is going to run with it, and declare spermicide to be a method of abortion instead of a method of contraception. Be careful what you wish for.

You are behind the times. Long ago, there were those who advocated bannning spermicide - some because they are thought it contraception and some thought it abortion. Now, I think those who thought it abortion were wrong, but my point is that there are always those who will promote lies and misinformation to further their goals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, now the good news is, if you live in one of 26 states, both people will either have to become parents or put the child up for adoption. Time for the woman to do her 9.

 

[TSwizzle]

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".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

No, the context is clear, it's in red and large font. Do not take my comments out of context, I am not talking about pregnancies that happen with incidents of rape.

You can play all the word games you like.

No word games from me. Just your predictable bait and switch derail.

I’m not obligated to play along.

You must be as there is no reason for you to respond with a derail.

Hey, this entire thread is MY derail.

You're not obligated to play along with the game but you still do.

You want to narrow down sex to only completely consensual sex between adults (I'm presuming the last part but maybe that's not what you meant).

Yes and also point out that you took my comments out of context.

Some of us refuse to discount lack of consent as a factor in pregnancy.

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.

 

[Toni]

.

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.

Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken. Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

 

[laughing dog]

Stop making excuses for your false accusation.

It was not an accusation nor was it false. It was a statement of fact.

No, it was not. A fact is something that is true., not something you wish to think it true. Your "Yes, getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting into a car accident. " is not a fact since I never wrote such a statement.

No, it is not. But that is not what you wrote.

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

No, you did not.

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.

Non. It is not. A 'direct' application of my reasoning would be that getting into a car and going on the road means you accept the possibility that you will be hit by a drunk driver. Which, of course, is true.

In post 312, I wrote

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.

And in post 347, I wrote

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".

The italicized bold-faced parts are to make it clear that you simply disagreeing over absolutely nothing,

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.
Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken. Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

It seems silly to remind people, but the whole process of ejaculation doesn't occur during the entire process of sex. Nor is the man obligated by law to do so inside the woman, despite her consent.

 

[No Robots]

Roe v. Wade overturned.

 

[Toni]

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.
Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken. Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

It seems silly to remind people, but the whole process of ejaculation doesn't occur during the entire process of sex. Nor is the man obligated by law to do so inside the woman, despite her consent.

Yeah, this was an entire plot in Season 1 of Bridgerton.

 

[TSwizzle]

.

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.

Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

I see, so really this derail isn't about how reproduction works but a rant about rapists getting women pregnant which we can't do much about. We could maybe encourage rapists to use condoms when they go raping but I don't think it is an effective strategy because condoms are not 100% effective. Some victims of rape are too young to get pregnant so that's not a problem, other than the rape of course.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken.

Hmmm, yeah, I think you might be on to something here. Maybe one day a scientists will come up with a way to stop the pregnancy happening. In the meantime, in order to avoid pregnancy the most effective strategy is to not have unprotected sex. Got it.

Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

Good to know

 

[Toni]

.

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.

Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

I see, so really this derail isn't about how reproduction works but a rant about rapists getting women pregnant which we can't do much about. We could maybe encourage rapists to use condoms when they go raping but I don't think it is an effective strategy because condoms are not 100% effective. Some victims of rape are too young to get pregnant so that's not a problem, other than the rape of course.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken.

Hmmm, yeah, I think you might be on to something here. Maybe one day a scientists will come up with a way to stop the pregnancy happening. In the meantime, in order to avoid pregnancy the most effective strategy is to not have unprotected sex. Got it.

Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

Good to know

No, I wrote what I wrote in a different thread, mods split it off because somehow a bunch of people thought what I wrote was a) controversial and b) about blaming men and lost their fucking minds because it’s much much much easier to assign blame —and here, I do mean blame—to women for being impregnated. Just like it’s much easier to assign them the full responsibility of raising any resulting child unless dear old dad decides to be generous and throw a couple of bucks her way. Oh, and blame women for sabotaging their careers and education. Ladies keep your knees together! Not: Keep it zipped, guys.

 

[TSwizzle]

No, I wrote what I wrote in a different thread, mods split it off because somehow a bunch of people thought what I wrote was a) controversial

I don't see any controversy from anyone on how fertilization works.

and b) about blaming men and lost their fucking minds because it’s much much much easier to assign blame —and here, I do mean blame—to women for being impregnated.

Only you have lost their fucking mind. And it very much is about you blaming men and absolving women. You have been consistent with that despite your obvious attempts to disguise it with waffle.

Just like it’s much easier to assign them the full responsibility of raising any resulting child unless dear old dad decides to be generous and throw a couple of bucks her way. Oh, and blame women for sabotaging their careers and education.

And here you slide in another lot of crap about post pregnancy problems and that isn't what people are discussing. That's just you talking with the voices in your head and posting it.

Ladies keep your knees together! Not: Keep it zipped, guys.

Agreed, women can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex and men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

Now you're getting it! I want THAT to be the EXPECTED behavior of men.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Emily Lake]

We've been talking about consensual sex (well, most of us have). The 'fault' and 'responsibility' of non-consensual sex does not have a bearing on the 'fault' and 'responsibility' of consensual sex.

Let's be realistic instead of philosophical here. Women have a hard time getting convictions of rape for cases where a complete stranger accosts her and assaults her. We have an even harder time getting convictions for date rape or marital rape, we're frequently dismissed as "having led him on" or in some fashion having "tacitly" consented even when we absolutely did not.

It's all well and good for you to philosophically decide that a guy not using a condom when he said he would, or not pulling out when he said he would count as rape... But that decision on your part has no bearing on the real world at all. You can say it's rape all day every day, but there will never be a conviction for it. So where does that leave us? It leaves us exactly where we already are: women end up being held responsible for ensuring that they don't get pregnant; men are asked politely to not get women pregnant, but if they decide they don't want to there are no consequences for their lack of responsibility. Men are NOT expected to be responsible for preventing an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

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

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

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

Why not?