Ridiculous responses of abortion supporters to gender tests and sex selective abortions
As reported by CNN on August 16 in a post entitled, “Is gender selection of a fetus ethical?”:
A new maternal blood test can determine a fetus’ sex as early as seven weeks into a pregnancy….
But this technology is igniting a heated ethical debate before it is even clinically available. Many fear… fear parents will use it for sex selection, aborting healthy fetuses that are of an unwanted sex.
They are probably right….
It seems highly likely that this new technology, far allowing earlier, cheaper and safer testing than amniocentesis, and more accurate results than ultrasound, will only increase the number of sex-selective abortions.
I was interested to see how abortion supporters would respond to this news. They can’t say they oppose gender selective abortions, because doing so would: 1) acknowledge at least some preborn babies are human, 2) condemn some abortions as morally wrong, and 3) interfere with a mother’s sacred right to “choose.”
So pro-choice ideologues have trapped themselves into standing idly by as females are targeted for abortion in the worst demonstration of misogyny possible, because the right to abort is more important than the lives of little women.
Those compelled to at least acknowledge the dilemma only looked ridiculous.
By far the most disturbingly sexist response was by pro-abortion Rabbi David Teutsch at Huffington Post:
Furthermore, disturbing nature’s course can have unfortunate social implications. In China and India, where abortion on the basis of sex has substantially raised the percentage of boys and men, it is impossible for many of the men who wish to marry to find partners. This is creating an unhappy situation for many men….
Seriously? We shouldn’t abort girls because we need to ensure men have happy homes and bed partners? Only a man would think of that, and a liberal man to boot.
Serena at Feminists for Choice thought that if sex selective abortions don’t happen in the U.S., they’re not important. So much for “We are the World.” And never mind Serena is wrong.
But disregarding Serena’s racial and cultural bigotry, her problem was that the gender test’s labeling left out hermaphrodites and transsexuals. I kid you not:
Many critics of the Pink or Blue test (yes, that’s the actual name) say that the blood test will contribute to higher abortion rates when women discover the sex of their baby. I don’t take this criticism seriously, since there is very little evidence that sex-selective abortion is common in the United States….
My criticism of Pink or Blue is printed right there in the name – pink, or blue? The test reinforces a binary gender model that fails to account for the multiple permutations of biological sex that can occur. Intersexuality is far more common than most of us realize. So is transsexuality. A simple blood test is hardly conclusive – and the 95% “accuracy” rate is questionable if it only looks at two possible biological outcomes.
As if parents inclined to abort the wrong sex wouldn’t run to their nearest abortion mill to abort an androgenous child or future cross-dresser.
Robin Marty at RH Reality Check considered it sexist to even ponder whether mothers might get sex selective abortions:
But is this just another “women abort for frivolous reasons” stereotype?…
If women were determined to abort due to the sex of the fetus they were carrying, it seems pretty likely that they would already be seeking out early detection via CVS (12 weeks), NT scan (14 weeks), or amnio (16 weeks). Learning the sex even earlier seems like it would only make that situation occur earlier, not add to the number of women who would abort for that reason.
Robin forgot she wrote only last year that mothers waiting too long to abort might “never find[ ] the money to do it, or maybe even hav[e] a change of heart.” She also acknowledged later abortions “are more expensive and have more risks.” So, of course, having the option to abort baby girls at seven weeks rather than 16 will only increase the rate.
Ironically, trivializing or ignoring sex selective abortions is only helping create an even stronger paternalistic world due simply to the numerical domination of men over women.
Which means someday the aforementioned good rabbi and two pro-abortion feminists could be forbidden from even posting their foolishness.
[Top photo via Jolly Good News]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
i heard about this on our local news a few days ago and thought the same
will they. abort? i know families who have all boys and want a girl and vise versa. you watch. some will be aborting until they get what they want!
Pink, blue, or purple? In all seriousness, she has a point: the tests probably will not be all that accurate for intersex babies. And that’s a good thing! That inaccuracy may well save their lives. Combine the prejudice of “Eww, a hermaphrodite” with the prejudice of “Well, it’s not a REAL baby yet…” and the results could be deadly.
Of course, as you point out, the sexism-ageism combo is also deadly. And it absolultely CAN happen in the United States. These abortion advocates are delusional.
i know families who have all boys and want a girl and vise versa. you watch. some will be aborting until they get what they want!
Exactly. The results of this will not be as glaringly obvious as it is in Asia, but it will be a tragedy all the same. Also, something that is getting lost in all of this is that mothers who fear x-linked diseases and even autism will be aborting their boys in huge numbers. Sigh.
In the full article at Huffington Post, Rabbi David Teutsch writes, “…Jewish ethics does not consider a fetus to have the same moral worth as a living human being”
His version of Jewish ethics apparently ignores the established biology conclusion that a fetus is 1) living and 2) a human being. While the status of “personhood” may be in dispute, his quote is misleading at best.
According to Rabbi Yitzchok Breitowitz, there is no consensus in Jewish ethics on the permissibility of abortion. Many authorities consider abortion permissible before 40 days. However, to quote him, “the vast majority of halachic authorities regard killing a fetus as a violation of Torah law.”
I’ve heard a recommendation for aborting to prevent the horror of having a (living) child with an autism spectrum disorder. They said that if a family already has one autistic child, future boy babies should be aborted, since they believe it’s more common in boys.
So, if I had been diagnosed early as having an autism spectrum disorder, they would have told my mom to abort my younger brother— who as a matter of fact did NOT have an autism spectrum disorder.
So my mom would have had only one defective/autistic kid, the normal one having been killed. THAT would have done really interesting things to her quality of life. (Thank God my mom’s prolife….)
I enjoy watching the squirming of pro-aborts with regard to sex-selective abortion. It seems not even their liberal mind-bending technique can cope. Either way a father gets stepped on under current law a man would be unable to prevent the mother of his child from commiting a sex-selective or any other abortion. IMO Men should have as much say as women in the eyes of the court when it comes to killing their unborn children. Either that or they shoud be allowed to absolve themselves of financial responsibility at any point up to birth. Needless to say that pro-life dads would way prefer a say in decisions about their unborn children.
They said that if a family already has one autistic child, future boy babies should be aborted
I read an article by Chuck Colson awhile back pointing out that in the UK many women, who have male relatives with autism, were being encouraged to abort their boys! Now, many of the boys probably would have been perfectly healthy, but weeding out any potential autistics was more important to the parents and the government. See this is the real story behind this early gender testing. I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that only a minority in the West will abort for sex and of those who do it will be more gender balanced than it is in other parts of the world. However, I just know that doctors will be pushing this test on women who are at risk for having sons with x-linked diseases and autism. I really do see a mass extinction for these boys. I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am not.
yes truthseeker i know many men who never got over the deaths of their aborted children. and just for the sake of saying it what would happen to a man who didn’t want the baby. can he have his right to choose not to pay child support?
wow that’s. one rabbi who needs to get his priorities straight. crazy
Sex selection abortion has been documented in the United States, as of 11 years ago. Almond and Edlund published “Son-basied ratios in the 2000 United States census.” This was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008.
Abstract number 990682 of this year’s 2011 Annual Convention of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (April 15-17, NYC), by G. Lin, showed skewed birth rates in some California locales where ’boutique,’ or keepsake,’ ultrasound facilities were more available, and where there was a higher number of Asian-background families.
I don’t know of any birth sex ratio data on this, but here in the US, we generally prefer “balanced” families, with a roughly equal number of boys and girls. So, generally, if a couple had two boys, they would be wishing for a female if pregnant again, or considering getting pregnant.
By this social preference pattern, it would be a lot more difficult to detect evidence that not-yet-born children were being killed because of gender.
and any logical person would know that we need girls in order to make more boys. you don’t. just wave a magic wand and boys/men appear
Sex selection abortion has been documented in the United States
The same trend has been found among Asians living in the UK and Canada as well. If the first child is a girl then second child births are skewed in favor of boys and if the first two are girls then the third birth is wildly skewed toward boys.
I heard Steven Mosher from the Population Research Institute say that he thought that Western parents also had sex selection abortions, but in much smaller numbers. He also speculated that since some parents may be going for a “perfect” family of one boy and one girl then some boy babies were also on the chopping block and therefore the evidence simply cannot be found in the numbers.
and any logical person would know that we need girls in order to make more boys. you don’t. just wave a magic wand and boys/men appear
This is why the population crazies made sex-selection a key goal in reducing Asia’s population. They knew that less girls would, in the end, mean less people altogether.
It’s already possible to choose the gender before pregnancy through a process of sorting the sperm. I don’t see anyone who is that intent on a specific gender waiting until after they get pregnant to decide they don’t want a certain gender.
Also, it makes zero sense for anyone who is pro-choice to get into a tizzy over this. Why is a fetus of the undesired gender any more deserving of protection than a fetus conceived at an inconvenient time? They can’t claim they worry about a gender imbalance either because gender selection before pregnancy is already available throughout the country, and the numbers are pretty equal with a slight preferance for girls.
Denise nice to meet you
thanks i did not know that!
Nice to meet you, too, h :)
By far the most disturbingly sexist response was by pro-abortion Rabbi David Teutsch at Huffington Post:
Seriously? We shouldn’t abort girls because we need to ensure men have happy homes and bed partners? Only a man would think of that, and a liberal man to boot.
==================================================================
Actually feminista author Mara Hvistendahl in her book on gendercide, ‘Unatural Selection’ made pretty much the same observation:
“Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live. Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent.”
In his Wall Street Journal book review of Unnatural Selection, Jonathon V. Last writes that “surplus men …accumulate in the lower classes, where risks of violence are already elevated. And unmarried men with limited incomes tend to make trouble. In Chinese provinces where the sex ratio has spiked, a crime wave has followed. Today in India, the best predictor of violence and crime for any given area is not income but sex ratio.”
GOD the creator said it is not good for man [male humans] to live alone so FATHER fashioned a woman [female human] as a helpmate for the man and HE commanded the male human and the female human to reproduce biologically…..a lot,…enough to fill the earth.
Animals mate out of instinctive obedience to the eternal command.
Humans have to be enticed.
As an added bonus GOD made sex a desirable and pleasureable experience for both the male and the female human, something he did not do for the non-humans/animals.
[You never see a dog or cat indulging in pillow talk or smoking a cigarette after having copulated. They just go right back to doing what they were doing before the compusion to fullfill the biological imperative overtook them.]
I like women in general, but I enjoy my wife exclusively.
The last thing I would want is to share my life with some nasty male.
I don’t care how good a cook and home management specialist he might happen to be.
In the beginnng GOD made humans, male and female HE made them.
[Just an observation: Homosexuals can never fulfill the commandment to reproduce more homosexuals biologically. They can only recruit.]
Gender selection can work both ways, not just against baby girls. If this had been around when my mother was pregnant with me she might have tried to get rid of me more, since she did not want another boy. The pro-choice advocates have nothing to say about sex selection, believe me, I have asked them.
Ken, a lot of us are not interested in fulfilling commandments But, you’re wrong that “they can only recruit.” You can’t turn people gay (or straight). I do agree with you on this point, however, “The last thing I would want is to share my life with some nasty male.”
Hal says: August 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm
“Ken, a lot of us are not interested in fulfilling commandments.”
===================================================================
That goes without saying, but I bet you have made not yourself a eunuch or taken a vow of celibacy.
You continue to obey the biological imperative to copulate even if choose to kill your children who are conceived as result of your obedience.
Humans exercise their will to obey or disobey the biological imperative.
Animals only follow their instincts.
Humans can obey or disobey, but humans cannot stop being a human even when they behave like an animal.
How about the commandment not to commit murder, or not to lie, or not steal.
You may not be interested in fulfilling those commandments, but I bet you are plenty happy when others do.
You can’t turn people gay (or straight).
I disagree. I think the behavior typically stems from sexual abuse as a child, or a stunted/absent relationship with the same-gender parent (possibly a combination of those two things). I’m not saying that that is ALWAYS the result, but I think there’s a tie-in between homosexuality and those two things, because that’s just something that I noticed growing up and watching the other children grow up around me.
And once again, to clarify, I don’t personally have a problem with homosexuals. They just don’t make any sense to me from a biological standpoint and their actions seem…counter-productive/counter-intuitive.
Oh man, I hate it when people say that homosexuality stems from sexual abuse or a bad relationship with a parent. I was sexually abused by my father and had a horrible relationship with my mother. I have never even considered I was anything but straight. Most gays I know felt like they were born that way, which speaks to some biological factor.
“Most gays I know felt like they were born that way, which speaks to some biological factor.”
Most straights feel that way too. I know I believe I was born this way.
Yeah, Hal, I don’t remember sitting down and deciding to be attracted to women at any point in my life.
I do know one girl who dated women because she was afraid of men. But she told me she never really felt like a lesbian even when she was living like it. My sister, on the other hand, was never remotely interested in men, though she tried to be straight for years.
Eh. I don’t know that many gay people. The two I do know had absolutely crappy/non-existent relationships with their fathers. My ex had a crappy relationship with his dad and lost his virginity at 11 to his best friend’s sister (sexual abuse, imo) and had some at the very least bi-sexual tendencies. So I freely admit that I’m speaking only from my very limited experience, and if you both have different experiences, I respect that. But, I maintain that people don’t always know why they do the things they do or are the way their are. Sometimes it takes someone removed from the situation to see the underlying issues.
i know. a gay couple and they were my friends for about 8 years. they have been together for 18. their dysfunction totally turned me off and drove me away
they were both severe alcoholics and their fighting got worse and worse. 911 was at their condo constantly. if they weren’t. being carted off to jail they were heading for the psych Ward or the ER for stitches. one is now HIV positive. he has a straight identical twin brother
Interesting, h, I know a few straight couples like that. I guess at the end of the day, we’re all human.
If abortion advocates aren’t “worried” about sex selective abortions (oh, they won’t get out of hand here in good ole America, blah blah blah, and what people do in foreign countries is cultural blah blah blah), and they aren’t worried about coerced abortions (oh, no, we worry more about coerced pregnancy, blah blah blah), I certainly can’t imagine they’re going to speak up against homosexual selective abortions when that elusive gay gene is finally found.
I fully expect crickets chirping and tumbleweed blowing by.
but we would talk about it and my former friends swear they were born that way. after our friendship crumbled i felt so free. i ended up becoming good friends with their former neighbor -they. moved. we both just said “enough ” anyway a friend of mine became their friend and according to him nothing has changed. i tell you i read Romans and it’s. all true. i used to shudder, at the erway the one spoke to his mom. It’s too evil to repeat and the woman died after he told he told her “I just wish you would die already you fat b#%*&!”
JB, what do you mean your sister tried to be straight for several years? Did she actually have sexual contact with boys? Did she have sexual contact with girls? Did she have any extended monogomous relationships?
too much drama for me and when i found out they were talking about me it came as no surprise
i have no problem speaking my mind and i spoke to him worse that day then he’d. ever spoken to his mom
they both got the tongue lashing of their lives! bit thanks. be to God because that was my out!
She was engaged to a man for years, and got counseling from the church to try to get rid of her feelings for women. After she left her fiance, as far as I am aware she has had two girlfriends, one she is still with.
IMO heterosexual relationships exist at countless levels besides the sexual. Marriage encompasses many of these levels. A full half of lifes possible experiences are implicitly missing to those who choose a homosexual partner. That it why it is sad for me to see homosexuals struggling for recognition that their relationships be deemed “equal” to heterosexual relationships by fighting for ‘homosexual marriage’. The phrase ‘homosexual marriage’is an oxymoron.
As a pro-abort class of people, the LGBT crowd find sex selective abortions to be more offensive then your typical femiNazi. I find FemiNAZI’s are more pro-liberal then pro-woman.
JB, sounds like she felt uncomfortable about wanting sex with women but try as she might she couldn’t repress acting out on those urges. Did she enjoy sex her fiancee?
i was friendly with a lesbian couple until they left state
they were pro life and detested abortion. they both had grown children and praised me for being pro life
It seems highly likely that this new technology, far allowing earlier, cheaper and safer testing than amniocentesis, and more accurate results than ultrasound, will only increase the number of sex-selective abortions.
Gotta agree with that.
____
Rabbi Teutsch: “In China and India, where abortion on the basis of sex has substantially raised the percentage of boys and men, it is impossible for many of the men who wish to marry to find partners. This is creating an unhappy situation for many men.”
Seriously? We shouldn’t abort girls because we need to ensure men have happy homes and bed partners? Only a man would think of that, and a liberal man to boot.
No, I don’t think so. It could well be a female observer who, regardless of her position on the abortion debate, realizes that any such imbalance can cause problems. Were it “too many women,” the case could be the same.
Ninek: I certainly can’t imagine they’re going to speak up against homosexual selective abortions when that elusive gay gene is finally found.
I fully expect crickets chirping and tumbleweed blowing by.
Well what is this? If somebody is pro-choice, they’re not going to qualify it after the fact. Or at the very least, more explanation will be needed to make their position plain.
Not to say that people won’t be against sex-selection abortions versus abortions for other reasons, but then they’re not simply “pro-choice” without qualification.
If people know they are pregnant with what would turn out to be a gay person – yes, it will make a difference to many. Who can really disagree with that?
truthseeker, we were raised very religiously, so she really didn’t want to be gay. She could have stayed celibate, but she was happier not being alone.
I do know one girl who dated women because she was afraid of men. But she told me she never really felt like a lesbian even when she was living like it.
That’s interesting Jack. Do you mean she was abused in her past and that made her afraid of men – or do you know?
I knew one girl in college who announced herself as a lesbian, partly as a political statement — it’s very chic among some feminists to be a lesbian — and partly because, as she said, “the sex is better” with women. It certainly sounded to be as if she was doing it as a deliberate choice. Admittedly I didn’t know her that well, and there may have been a host of other things behind it, even abuse, for all I know. But she never claimed to have been born that way. Life and people are just too complex to simply say that sexual orientation is settled at birth.
For me JB it is repulsive to so I couldn’t fake it no matter what.
Lori, I met her when I was a runaway, she was one too. She left home because her mother’s boyfriend was molesting her. I do think that homosexuality, for some people, is more complicated than genetics. But on the whole, it does seem like nature plays a bigger part than nurture. You get gay people from all backgrounds.
I rather agree with Xalisae. In the ’60’s and ’70’s there was an actor/performer named Quentin Crisp who was a frequent guest on the TV talk shows. He wrote a bestseller called “The Naked Civil Servant” in which he described how his mother dressed him up as a girl (way beyond “Little Lord Fauntleroy clothes). He, at least, thought it ensured his homosexuality.
I do not believe they will be able to develop a tests that detects homosexuality because it is a behavior choice . I have had a hospice patient dying of aids who was a twin and his identical twin was straight. I think it is like any other mental illness studied in twin studies and don’t get salty at me even the APA had it as a mental illness until fairly recently. Having a twin that has it slightly raises your chances of having it but it does not determine it. I think in the west it may lead to an slightly higher incidence of girls because women are the only ones allowed a choice and The kind of women that would abort a child based on gender are slightly misandryistic.
Men should have as much say as women in the eyes of the court when it comes to killing their unborn children. Either that or they should be allowed to absolve themselves of financial responsibility at any point up to birth.
This got 11 thumbs up? SERIOUSLY? All we need when we have moral depravity is MORE moral depravity. Yes, it’s inconsistent that a woman who gets pregnant and doesn’t want to be a mother can kill her child while a father who gets a girl pregnant and doesn’t want to be a father still has to act (at least financially) as a father. The correct answer to this inconsistency is not to drag men down to this immoral level by giving them input to kill their child or allow them to abandon their children, but raise women UP to a moral level. Just like a man can’t make a child and then decide not to be responsible, a woman’s shouldn’t be able to make a child and decide not to be responsible, either. A father is morally responsible to take care of his child whether he wants to or not and guess what, girls, YOU ARE TOO. At least for the 9 months that your child can’t survive without you. No child asked to be conceived- That was the acts of 2 people- mother and father. BOTH are obligated to care for their child until that child can be cared for by someone else.
Placing for adoption responsibly and morally negates taking care of a child in any capacity- financially or otherwise. So there is an acceptable option for people that make children but don’t want them. Of all my adoption experience, I have never seen a father want to care for his child that the mother wants to place for adoption. Not once did any man refuse to sign and want to take his child into his home and raise his son or daughter. They all happily sign that document- most with few questions asked. And I worked in open adoptions where Dad could still see their baby and all but one (and only because he was still a couple with the mother) went to visitation. It’s sad, but at least it’s not dismemberment or abandonment like Truthseeker suggests is the solution to make things “equal.” I know you oppose abortion- but your “solution” in the mean time until abortion is off the table only makes things worse.
These radical pro-abortion feminist types really live by a creed which is “my gender, right or wrong”.
Jacqueline,
just to be clear; I wasn’t suggesting it as a solution, I was pointing out the inconsistency in holding men responsible financially but giving them ZERO input legally.
I get what you were saying, but read what you said. You weren’t pointing out the inconsistency but “IMO” you think men should have a say or the legal option to bail on mother and child. I disagree with your opinion. The inconsistency is not holding women responsible- it’s letting women be irresponsible. People being responsible for the children they make is consistent- any gender bailing on that responsbility is not. Men shouldn’t have INPUT on whether or not their child lives or dies. Killing children should not be an option. Until that day comes, we need to become less evil, not more evil.
Truthseeker: I wasn’t suggesting it as a solution, I was pointing out the inconsistency in holding men responsible financially but giving them ZERO input legally.
Well, it’s not “equal” between men and women, no, but then again – women are the only ones who get pregnant, so no, it ain’t gonna be equal.
Aside from the perceived morality or immorality of abortion – we all know the sides, here – I do think it’s somewhat unfortunate that men can be compelled to pay against their will. However, the state’s position is that the kid has a right to be supported by the parents, even if one or both doesn’t want to pay, that right trumping any consideration of not wanting to pay on the part of the parents.
That said, I hope women who continue pregnancies do it for other reasons than just that “he’ll have to pay….”
Jacqueline, IMO also means from my perspective and as a pro-life man that would mean no abortions allowed for my kids. I wouldn’t WANT to give men the right to bail on their child either.
“That said, I hope women who continue pregnancies do it for other reasons than just that “he’ll have to pay….””
Wouldn’t that be her choice? ;)
“I do think it’s somewhat unfortunate that men can be compelled to pay against their will.”
Sick, Doug. They aren’t paying “against their will”- They exercised their will when they took part in conceiving an innocent child. Their child DOES have the right (state’s interests aside) to be supported by their parents or be placed in the care of people who will properly support them.
Unless there is rape- no one is forced to make a child against their will. And once that child is made, that child has rights whether the disgusting, neutered poor excuse of a man wants to “pay” or not. Same goes for weak, poor excuse for women who got pregnant but “didn’t want to be pregnant.” There are 3 people involved now and you guys have to be adults and do right by the child you made.
the state’s position is that the kid has a right to be supported by the parents, even if one or both doesn’t want to pay,
Exactly Doug. And with that kid’s right to be supported should come a reciprocal right of the parent to raise/support that kid.
What the feminists don’t like to acknowledge is that right now the law treats men as competent decision makers who can be held responsible for the natural consequences of their actions, but treats women like infants who can’t be asked to do the same. Look at the hysterics of abortion supporters here when you suggest such blasphemy – “slut-shaming!” “sex is not just for procreation!” “you’re a sexually repressed religious zealot!” “How dare I want to have sex and not want children!”. And yet these same people are perfectly content with the current legal inconsistency that treats women like idiots. It offends me as a woman.
Obviously, as others have said, the solution to this problem is not to allow men to act like babies and avoid the consequences but to treat women like adults too.
“I do think it’s somewhat unfortunate that men can be compelled to pay against their will.”
Sick, Doug. They aren’t paying “against their will”- They exercised their will when they took part in conceiving an innocent child. Their child DOES have the right (state’s interests aside) to be supported by their parents or be placed in the care of people who will properly support them.
Jacqueline, wow, “sick”? It’s too bad they have to pay when they don’t want to. I’m not saying I favor them not being made to pay. Also gotta disagree that it’s not against his will. Often, it is. In no way was he necessarily exercising his will, pursuant to making a baby when he had sex, any more than is true for the woman. Sure, sex can lead to babies, but that’s not saying that “any sex means the will is to have babies.” Heck, by far – most sex is for pleasure, not because a baby is wanted.
____
Unless there is rape- no one is forced to make a child against their will. And once that child is made, that child has rights whether the disgusting, neutered poor excuse of a man wants to “pay” or not. Same goes for weak, poor excuse for women who got pregnant but “didn’t want to be pregnant.” There are 3 people involved now and you guys have to be adults and do right by the child you made.
I agree that short of being physically compelled (except for some fairly outlandish scenarios) the sex was consentual. And I’m for the parents being held liable for support.