Male Reproductive Accountability

**Hephaestus** · 02-10-2015, 02:17 AM

I think that if men could be held criminally and socially accountable for any abortions they conceived, more men would wear condoms. Provided of course, they were even more accountable for attempts to intimidate or prohibit abortions from happening--other than, of course, using a condom to prevent conception.

**pensive_pilgrim** · 02-10-2015, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Hephaestus

I think that if men could be held criminally and socially accountable for any abortions they conceived, more men would wear condoms. Provided of course, they were even more accountable for attempts to intimidate or prohibit abortions from happening--other than, of course, using a condom to prevent conception.

So you want to make sure we have zero control over whether it happens or not(once a pregnancy occurs), but higher social consequences than the people who do decide whether it happens? What am I missing here?

Here's my unpopular opinion: I think that if we're going to make a law that insurers have to cover contraception for women, we should mandate that they cover it for men too.

**Hephaestus** · 02-10-2015, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by pathogenetic_peripatetic

So you want to make sure we have zero control over whether it happens or not(once a pregnancy occurs), but higher social consequences than the people who do decide whether it happens? What am I missing here?

The ability to deliberately avoid conception in the first place?

**Faust** · 02-10-2015, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Hephaestus

I think that if men could be held criminally and socially accountable for any abortions they conceived, more men would wear condoms. Provided of course, they were even more accountable for attempts to intimidate or prohibit abortions from happening--other than, of course, using a condom to prevent conception.

What do you mean by "abortions they conceived", the sort they agree with?

The threat of child support still isn't enough to convince some to wear a glove so I'm not sure that would. Evasion for which is a federal offense here.

**pensive_pilgrim** · 02-10-2015, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Hephaestus

The ability to deliberately avoid conception in the first place?

Even if condoms had a 100% success rate (they don't) why do you want to hold one party more responsible for something that the other party has much more control over?

**Hephaestus** · 02-10-2015, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by pathogenetic_peripatetic

Even if condoms had a 100% success rate (they don't) why do you want to hold one party more responsible for something that the other party has much more control over?

Because the degree to which they are presently being held responsible seems to be insufficient to work.

@Faust: By abortions they conceived I mean abortions they were the sperm donor to. It seems improper to say they fathered or sired, and going with fetus or zygote gives too much sophist wiggle room. You know, like you're digging for.

**pensive_pilgrim** · 02-10-2015, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by Hephaestus

Because the degree to which they are presently being held responsible seems to be insufficient to work.

Insufficient for what? Do you want to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies? Women have a lot more options than men when it comes to contraception, and they can also choose not to have sex with a man who's not wearing a condom. They already have potentially severe physical and social consequences for an accidental pregnancy... and yet they still occur. What makes you think creating penalties for men is going to make any difference?

And if you're not opposed to abortions and this idea is born out of some wish for justice... wouldn't it be better to try and reduce the consequences for women who choose to have abortions? We could make them free and work to remove any stigma. Remember, it's not always the case that an accidental pregnancy is the result of irresponsibility. And even in the cases where it is, I think education is usually a better approach than stiff penalties.

**Hephaestus** · 02-10-2015, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by pathogenetic_peripatetic

Insufficient for what? Do you want to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies? Women have a lot more options than men when it comes to contraception, and they can also choose not to have sex with a man who's not wearing a condom. They already have potentially severe physical and social consequences for an accidental pregnancy... and yet they still occur. What makes you think creating penalties for men is going to make any difference?

And if you're not opposed to abortions and this idea is born out of some wish for justice... wouldn't it be better to try and reduce the consequences for women who choose to have abortions? We could make them free and work to remove any stigma. Remember, it's not always the case that an accidental pregnancy is the result of irresponsibility. And even in the cases where it is, I think education is usually a better approach than stiff penalties.

Accidental, abandoned, yeah.

You know who else has a choice not to have sex with someone without a condom? Men.

While reducing the consequences for women is great--reducing the likelihood of an abortion is even better IMSO--and not by the vector of shaming women into not having them, but by making unintentional conception less common.

Where accidental pregnancy isn't the result of irresponsibility, the penalty could be less severe. People are not unaccustomed to degrees of crime and punishment. We're all aware of degrees of bad--even the fundamentalists can rank their sins.

**pensive_pilgrim** · 02-10-2015, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Hephaestus

Accidental, abandoned, yeah.

You know who else has a choice not to have sex with someone without a condom? Men.

While reducing the consequences for women is great--reducing the likelihood of an abortion is even better IMSO--and not by the vector of shaming women into not having them, but by making unintentional conception less common.

Where accidental pregnancy isn't the result of irresponsibility, the penalty could be less severe. People are not unaccustomed to degrees of crime and punishment. We're all aware of degrees of bad--even the fundamentalists can rank their sins.

Personally, I don't take abortions lightly. But I'm still very opposed to the idea of criminalizing them in any way. Criminalizing them only for the party who has no say over whether they occur after that one drunken night seems even more backwards to me.

I think you were missing my point in saying that women have a choice about having sex without a condom. It's not about assigning blame after the fact. I'm saying that one party in control of that decision already faces greater potential consequences. Therefore, it seems unlikely to me that increasing consequences for the other party is going to have the effect you desire - the decision to use protection.

I would also question how you're planning to decide after the fact whether an accidental pregnancy was the result of irresponsibility or just bad luck. We already have trouble sometimes figuring out for sure whether both people even wanted to be having sex - how is a court going to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that they both intended to use adequate contraceptive measures? Er, that is, whether the male party intended to.

Honestly, I don't even really see why you feel like we need to reduce the number of abortions. It's not like they have significant social consequences beyond the individuals involved. Why not just leave it up to individuals? How's it going to benefit the rest of us to keep Suzy down the street from having an abortion?