This is confusing the practical realities of today with ideal law. The burden of carrying or terminating a pregnancy, bodily and fiscally rests solely on the woman in any scenario.
The law can't meaningfully distinguish, or even collect solid evidence, of "consent for reproduction" nor can it handle third party equipment failure (or reasonably prove it was not due to misuse either way).
If a man has sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, every bodily consequence falls on her, and some magic "I didn't consent to reproduce" law would have the practical effect of legally compelling a woman's decisions about her body to her own detriment.
All of which is a long winded way of saying: having sex is not consenting to be a father, but it is consenting to having to deal with the possible consequences. Invent a world where men can disable sperm production entirely, and you'd be able to write very different laws.
Are we pretending things like vasectomies aren’t a thing? The success rate is generally in the upper-90% so sure it could fail but for the vast majority of people, that is equivalent to “disabling sperm production entirely”
The laws also, as have been mentioned already elsewhere in this post, do include such a consent clause. So it’s not really theory either.
Are you ignoring my distinction between hypothetically perfect laws and the laws as written?
And also being just downright stupid about what a vasectomy is and it's reversibility (hint: no medical professional will perform a vasectomy if you are getting one under the impression that it is reliably reversible, particularly after decades).
You never said it had to be reversible, so maybe next time outline your goal posts a bit better if you don’t want people to blow right through them.
It’s almost as if all you said was:
> Invent a world where men can disable sperm production entirely, and you'd be able to write very different laws.
And you clearly can’t bother looking at the existing comments when you have so much snark to share so let me help you out with real, actual laws that exist. There is no difference between an ideal world and real laws when the laws actually exist.
That's still not how hypotheticals work, nor does it have any bearing on the original argument I was making.
You've managed to not read my original post, and have been doubling down by pretending that "well what about vasectomies" was a core problem or even oversight.
What hypothetical? The one where men can turn off reproduction? Congrats, that already exists. The one where laws are made around the ability to do so? Congratu-fucking-lations. It exists.
There is no hypothetical when the things being discussed already exist. That's not how hypotherticals work.
Next time, don't have a shit argument that can be broken down in a heartbeat and then whine about your precious hypotheticals not being respected.
> This is relatively new; previously Visa/MC prevented their merchants from doing this but it changed recently.
Not that it is the biggest point in this chain of people arguing badly past each other, but you have confused “hypothetical” (which assumes a condition independent of what is true in reality) vs. “counterfactual” (which assumes a condition contrary to what is true in reality).
Gotta love replying to a day old thread you had nothing to do with with both a quote that doesn’t come from the thread and a definition that isn’t accepted by most major dictionaries.
That’s like peak “I know what I’m talking about” material.
The law can't meaningfully distinguish, or even collect solid evidence, of "consent for reproduction" nor can it handle third party equipment failure (or reasonably prove it was not due to misuse either way).
If a man has sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, every bodily consequence falls on her, and some magic "I didn't consent to reproduce" law would have the practical effect of legally compelling a woman's decisions about her body to her own detriment.
All of which is a long winded way of saying: having sex is not consenting to be a father, but it is consenting to having to deal with the possible consequences. Invent a world where men can disable sperm production entirely, and you'd be able to write very different laws.