Ethics of reproductive coercion/similar against men and rights when in regards to parental control & liability - (Contains NSFW talk and scenarios)

[We Are The Witches]

This is something I'm curious about, because I've seen people stand on one side of the fence or the other, but as (almost) always, seems like bias greatly determines one's ethical stance after considering if it can/will affect them personally, so here you'll have to reason your perspective, and tell if you'd apply the consequences to yourself if you were the victim.

Should be noted that this topic has NSFW talk and scenarios, so hopefully it doesn't devolve into childish remarks.

---

I'm going to present several hypotheticals, and you'll have to decide if the victim (in this case the man/soon to be father) suffered from any type of sexual abuse (or is a victim of malicious acts that are sexual in nature), and if they should have the right to relinquish their liability as a parent, as a result of this.

I also need to mention that I believe child support is supposedly thought as means to protect neither the male nor the female (in the case of a heterosexual couple), but to protect the child. However real life turns out to be filled with nuances, and what's seen as fair in one situation may not be in another.

---

- Scenario 1:
An unmarried adult couple of a man and a woman agree on having a sexual relationship, and to not have kids. They use common, relatively safe contraception methods (such as condoms) but for some reason it ends up failing (if you want, this hypothetical can also consider it with the male having gone through a vasectomy, but a failed one, in which his body inadvertently reversed/healed the procedure). The woman ends up being pregnant, but despite her initial desire on not having kids, she changes her mind and decides to have it.

Should the soon to be father be legally able to release himself from any liability in regards to the child (such as paying for child support, etc)? If this was you (don't care if you're man or woman, you can imagine yourself in such scenario), would you apply your reasoning to yourself?

- Scenario 2:
Same type of couple decides to have sex, but the woman lies (or is extremely negligent about) claiming that she's on birth control (or incapable of getting pregnant that time). She ends up getting pregnant, but the male does not want to be the father and was initially under the assumption that he surely wasn't going to be (because of what he was told).

Should he be allowed to not be liable for this (child)? Was he a victim of any sort of abuse? If this was you, would you take the responsability?

- Scenario 3:
Same initial couple as the first scenario in which they have the sexual relationship & the agreement on not having kids, but the woman succeeds to willingly sabotage the contraceptive method (e.g: by breaking it), unbeknownst to the male and gets pregnant. You can also assume the sexual act didn't involve penetration at all, but the woman, without the consent or knowledge of the male, decided to impregnate herself with the "result" of the previous sexual act.

Apply the same question as the previous example.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Should the soon to be father be legally able to release himself from any liability in regards to the child (such as paying for child support, etc)? If this was you (don't care if you're man or woman, you can imagine yourself in such scenario), would you apply your reasoning to yourself?

Reproductive control is a sin. So no.

Should he be allowed to not be liable for this (child)? Was he a victim of any sort of abuse? If this was you, would you take the responsability?

Reproductive Control is a sin. Also no.

Apply the same question as the previous example.

Reproductive Control is a sin. Also Also no.

Damn, this was easy. /thread.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Reproductive control is a sin. So no.

Not sure about your response, you're saying that he shouldn't be able to be released from this responsability? But at the same time you don't approve of this control/coercion. Here, the control is being perpetrated by the woman.

So, if you were the male who didn't want kids & agreed to that with the woman, but then she lied about being on birth control or tampered with the contraceptive method, would you take responsability for this child?

 

[mindlessobserver]

Not sure about your response, you're saying that he shouldn't be able to be released from this responsability?

If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

 

[Chilson]

The scenarios hardly matter to me. The reality is that if you have sex with someone, even with contraceptives, you should have the expectation that pregnancy could happen. If it does, then you have to be prepared to be a parent. You might not have to get married or even be in a relationship with the other party, but you are going to be a parent and you need to be there for your child no matter what it takes.

I know quite a few people will call me high strung or "lame" for what I am about to say, but one of the reasons we have degenerated so much as a society is because sex and by extension all relationships have become such a casual affair. When I have sex, I do it with partners who I can see getting into a long term relationship with and would be willing to have a child should that happen either intentionally or by accident. Its a policy that has kept me away from crazy and has generally given me great success in relationship quality.

The issue with me is not so much if the woman chooses to have the child and raise it, but if she wants an abortion. I will be strongly opposed and ensure that she is absolutely sure of her decision, but ultimately its her decision to make as much as it sickens me.

If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

if you want the TL;DR of my post.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The issue with me is not so much if the woman chooses to have the child and raise it, but if she wants an abortion. I will be strongly opposed, but ultimately its her decision to make as much as it sickens me.

Should add though that abortion should be an utter deal breaker. It's her choice to be alone. No kid, or boyfriend/husband. Enjoy taking care of cats in a rented apartment where you will die and they eat your face when they get hungry because nobody cares to check on you.

 

[Chilson]

Should add though that abortion should be an utter deal breaker. It's her choice to be alone. No kid, or boyfriend/husband. Enjoy taking care of cats in a rented apartment where you will die and they eat your face when they get hungry because nobody cares to check on you.

Oh yeah, the relationship is over after that. I just put it there because that is an inevitable escalation of this discussion.

 

[We Are The Witches]

If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

Going by this statement I should assume that you don't approve of abortion then. That's another topic on another thread I'm sure.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Going by this statement I should assume that you don't approve of abortion then. That's another topic on another thread I'm sure.

Reproductive control is a sin. Abortion is just a unique form of this sin that the woman is uniquely qualified to carry on their back alone.

 

[ShamefurDispray]

To scenario one and two in an ideal world a man shouldn't have to be legally obligated to be liable for any children he may or may not have.
Accidents happen a man isn't a man if he can't step up and deal with the consequences of his actions.

To scenario 3: This one should be considered a crime universally. The woman should have the children taken from her and be punished. The man should still step up and take care of the child though but he absolutely shouldn't be liable legally.

With that said if you are a man bring your own condoms and make sure you know where your used condoms end up. A woman can forget and make an honest mistake about her birth control, and I'd say the same to women bring your own birth control.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Reproductive control is a sin. Abortion is just a unique form of this sin that the woman is uniquely qualified to carry on their back alone.

Reproductive control (AKA reproductive coercion) refers to behaviours/actions for a specific purpose (like gaining some form of control in a relationship) that include things like tampering with contraceptive methods, lying about being on birth control, lying about having gone through a vasectomy, etc.

Since you keep reiterating on that, (in your view) should the woman be punished if it was somehow proved that she willfully sabotaged the contraceptive method against the male's will or knowledge?

And in regards to abortion, you say it's a sin, but what are the consequences of that? (in your perspective) If you want to bring any religious arguments, go ahead.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Since you keep reiterating on that, (in your view) should the woman be punished if it was somehow proved that she willfully sabotaged the contraceptive method against the male's will or knowledge?

No. Both the woman and the man are now responsible for the life they brought into the world. The woman will just have to deal with the relationship issues her deception will cause, and the man will have to deal with the responsibility of having sex.

This incidentally is why Reproductive control is a sin. It is intrinsically based on deception, both between man and woman, and nature itself. If it fails strife is inevitable. If it succeeds, strife in inevitable. There has been not one bit of societal good to come from it. All it has done is undermine the social functions necessary for man and women to work together. Its evil in all its forms and a blight on society. Anyone who engages with it gets what they deserve.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Use a condom if you don't want to get preggers. Otherwise live with the consequences.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Use a condom if you don't want to get preggers. Otherwise live with the consequences.

You didn't read the thread.

Sure, you can take your own advice, but the condom may fail, or it may be willfully altered against your will or knowledge, so it doesn't work anymore.

In such cases, your if scenario/way of acting is insufficient if you don't want to be pregnant/cause a pregnancy.

No. Both the woman and the man are now responsible for the life they brought into the world. The woman will just have to deal with the relationship issues her deception will cause, and the man will have to deal with the responsibility of having sex.

This incidentally is why Reproductive control is a sin. It is intrinsically based on deception, both between man and woman, and nature itself. If it fails strife is inevitable. If it succeeds, strife in inevitable. There has been not one bit of societal good to come from it. All it has done is undermine the social functions necessary for man and women to work together. Its evil in all its forms and a blight on society. Anyone who engages with it gets what they deserve.

Alright.

Now I'm wondering what it means "sin" to you and how it's balanced, which authority does that (if any), or what consequences it entails. So the cause-effect, if there is any, or if "sin" is just a fancy title with no repercussions.

 

[Weed Eater]

Scenario 1: The man, yes, is ultimately free to do whatever choice he wants. IMO, it is a better choice to accept your fate if you "accidentally" impregnate a woman (I don't think that shit is "accidental" in the sense that, both parties agreed to do the act and accept the consequences that comes from it, if something happens.) The man in this hypothetical shouldn't be that surprised if family court/talks of child support come up, even if he absolutely doesn't want the kid, but the woman wants to keep it. Even if the woman does keep the kid, nobody wins in the hypothetical. The kid gets the worse end of the stick.

Scenario 2: Entrapment is entrapment. The topic of entrapment shouldn't be assumed that only one sex/one side of the situation could be affected by a choice like this. Poking the condom, whether it's the female OR male, is fucked up. There are men insane enough out there to entrap women into long term relationships all by taking advantage of her stance/beliefs on having children and if she's "okay" with abortion. Either way, whoever is entrapped, yes of course I would say they've been abused and should take action.

I guess it could also still depend? Obviously it's case-to-case, or rather, hypothetical-to-hypothetical. I personally wasn't supposed to "exist", my own mother was told for years as a young adult that she was "never going to have kids" by doctors. She never lied to, who ended up becoming my father/her husband, when it came to that situation. Of course my mother was going to keep the child she thought she was never going to conceive. My father was allowed to walk away if he really wanted to, but he didn't.

Scenario 3: I'm assuming this hypothetical is specifically, the act of a woman taking something like a condom and doing whatever means necessary to get pregnant, even if a condom was used? Personally, if you're fucking crazy enough bitches who even have the audacity to THINK UP of something like this to try and entrap a man, you kind of "deserve" it lmao. I have only ever heard of crazy shit like this happening when it came to that whole "Drake put hot sauce in a condom!" situation back in 2022. Either way, this bullshit technically falls under the reasoning with Scenario 2. It's just poking the condom after sex and doing whatever means necessary to entrap.

Going by this statement I should assume that you don't approve of abortion then. That's another topic on another thread I'm sure.

He's shat up the very debate/topic thread on that very subject, because christcucking and screaming at everyone else about "sins" is somehow productive to him. Like he's doing in this thread, too.

I personally am not completely "anti-abortion". There are times where it is necessary, and yes I do consider "I don't want to have a baby" to be a valid reason compared to most people. Families, especially women, should not be expected to have endless kids. Children are expensive, having less kids means a better quality of life for the ones who already exist. I can't imagine the families who "manage" to have five or more children, because most of the time when I do, the kids are not some of the best you'll see. Being a parent is more than having sex and popping them out. Saying, "Reproductive control is a sin," is just a huge cope to not actually accept responsibility. Aborting an embryo/early enough fetus because you already have two or three kids? Because you, as a mother already with your husband/children's father, understand that it would make you financially poorer and force your already existing children to struggle? Leave those families and their choices alone. Simple as. Telling married couples to not have sex/accept fate, because "birth control is EVIL and against NATURE" is fucking retarded.

Despite all of this sperging, I am not a supporter of "first time abortions". I use reproductive control to ENSURE that I don't become one of these dumbasses who ends up "wanting" an abortion because Mr. Weed Eater and I ended up with myself pregnant. It already isn't in my mindset to do this anyway. If it happens, it happens. The idea of killing off the first ever attempt at conceived life in my womb (even if it's an accident) isn't something I ever want to do. I don't agree or even like the women who are okay with that mindset, or have already done it and go around gloating about how they're "childfree" by doing things like that. It's okay though, because it's not like they won't feel the consequences of that procedure/mindset.

It doesn't matter how many weeks/months into pregnancy, when a woman has an abortion. The body knows, the brain knows. Those types never want to admit it, but they absolutely do feel the guilt. Being an unbalanced, unloved whore who isn't thinking about long term relationships will also do this to you. Factors like this is why I'll always support contraception. It's better to block off the sperm and egg meeting than it is to have abortions or unwanted children that end up worse off, rather than just never being conceived at all.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Now I'm wondering what it means "sin" to you and how it's balanced, which authority does that (if any), or what consequences it entails. So the cause-effect, if there is any, or if "sin" is just a fancy title with no repercussions.

The repercussion is the ruination of your relationship. Whether or not there needs to be civil involvement is another matter, and one I won't opine on since the civil authorities are just as corrupt as the people engaging in the sin, and in fact actively support the sin. So they are no fit judges to adjudicate the matter.

But I will entertain the thought.

Your Civil Family Issue is now in the court of the Church and a panel of Priests will now determine your fate. There are no appeals, no civil redress and if you disobey the terms you are burned at the stake as a heretic.

Issue 1. The result of the condoms failure was Gods will. The woman is not at fault insofar as she engaged with relations. The man is also not at fault, insofar as the engaged with relations. Both are responsible for taking care of the child. 50/50 custody or marriage.

Issue 2. The use of chemical contraception is a mortal sin, and thus both parents who willingly engaged with it must atone. Their atonement is the choice of forced marriage for a term of not less then 19 years, or surrendering their child to the church and being forced to pay the church for its wellbeing and care if being parents is somehow too onerous for them.

Issue 3. Same as issue 2.

I feel like we are cross purposes. You are coming from the position that there is some sort of justification for the drugs that have enabled the sexual revolution in our society, and I am of the opinion the drugs need to be banned and anyone who uses them whipped in the street, while the ones who deal them are hanged or burned in the public square. Preferably the latter because the screams are a balm to the soul of the faithful and a wound to the ears of the unwary. We are not going to agree here.

 

[WelperHelper99]

You didn't read the thread.

Sure, you can take your own advice, but the condom may fail, or it may be willfully altered against your will or knowledge, so it doesn't work anymore.

In such cases, your if scenario/way of acting is insufficient if you don't want to be pregnant/cause a pregnancy.

I did though. Were you forced to have sex? No? You knew the risks. If you arent married you get what you deserve.

 

[Weed Eater]

I did though. Were you forced to have sex? No? You knew the risks. If you arent married you get what you deserve.

Honestly this has always been my take when it came to stuff like this. If you aren't whoring around/participating in casual sex then who the hell needs to worry about contraception, STDs, "accidental" pregnancy, ect. It shouldn't be that difficult competently dating around and finding someone worthy enough to be your partner for AT MINIMUM three to four years.

And if you AREN'T already thinking about marriage/future life by that point in a hypothetical like that, then you're a fucking idiot.

 

[mindlessobserver]

And if you AREN'T already thinking about marriage/future life by that point in a hypothetical like that, then you're a fucking idiot.

And in the case of a woman also wasting time. Men can put off responsibility and marriage for decades potentially. Females have between the ages of 16 and 30 to really figure it out. After that the diminishing returns start coming in hard and fast. All Contraception and the drugs have done is allowed women to engage in the fallacy that they can enter into relationships like the bad boys with no morals.

Well, the Bad Boys eventually settle down, and probably marry a 20 year old. The Bad Girls get to live with their cats. Its a cruel deception, and part of my vitriol against these drugs is seeing female friends of mine actually fall into this trap now that they are in their thirties. I'm not even catholic and at this point I am in complete agreement with them on the subject.

 

[gang weeder]

My general ethos is that sex is for making kids and if you aren't willing to accept the possibility of having a kid, you shouldn't have sex at all. It's okay to use contraception and do family planning and whatever but if pregnancy happens now you have a duty to be a parent. Having sex isn't some kind of unalienable human right, therefore having sex under a guarantee that it will be free of consequences is not a something you're entitled to either.

The only time I would say a father would be justified in completely cutting off a kid for no reason besides that he just doesn't want to be a father, would be if he was legitimately raped or otherwise coerced into becoming a parent despite no sexual relationship existing between him and the mother. Even in this case, if it were me, I'd still try and have some kind of role in the kid's life if I could. Abandoning your offspring out of selfish reasons is pretty much always wrong.

Going by this statement I should assume that you don't approve of abortion then. That's another topic on another thread I'm sure.

Abortion is murder and should be treated as such. If abandoning your offspring for selfish reasons is wrong, actively killing them for such reasons is even worse. One of the most monstrous things you can do as a human being tbh.

Children are expensive, having less kids means a better quality of life for the ones who already exist. I can't imagine the families who "manage" to have five or more children, because most of the time when I do, the kids are not some of the best you'll see.

If "qualify of life" justifies murdering a child, poor people (or anyone who decides they have "too many" kids) should have free reign to commit infanticide.

This sort of non-logic is so tiresome and predictable.