You talk about verbal contracts, how is that different from misrepresenting yourself if you said you were on the pill or you had a vasectomy? The verbal contract of consent can be delivered or revoked during this stage as well.
That's like saying that eating has been separated from sustenance (or nutrition) because people (just happen to) eat Twinkies for pleasure.
People doing something for reasons that just happen to not to be the primary purpose does remove the purpose of an action.
Part of what enables pleasure-sex in humans is the fact that penetration does not trigger ovulation and that happens on its own schedule so evolution selected for mating strategies that would lead to frequent and short encounters. Additionally, the way we began to walk upright had the effect of moving human female genitalia more to the front which enabled her to be more selective about her partners. With the parental instinct being shared among both males and females combined with the fact both parties also are able to derive a great deal of pleasure from the experience, both sexes end up being more closely aligned with the goals of a sexual encounter vs those of our ancient ancestors.
To bring it back around, I understand what you are trying to say here, but disagree with your conclusion. Evolution selected modern humans to engage in sexual encounters that will not always result in a pregnancy, unlike eating which your body will always attempt to process the same as the last thing you are.
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.
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.
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).
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.
If you're not capable of understanding what a hypothetical is then there's really no further discussion to be had here.
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.
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.
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).
That’s like peak “I know what I’m talking about” material.
That sounds primitive and regressive. "If you're a women who has sex, you're consenting to be a mother".
That’s the point, not whatever you were trying to read out of it.
Maybe when you're asking yourself why the woman has the ultimate choice, you remember that you're not the one carrying the baby to term.
(Not a perfect argument, since it is of course his child as well and killing it would seem to involve both of them.)
It's harder to argue that she should also be the one to decide who is forced to work to pay for the baby's upbringing for 18 years. There is no situation where the woman can be so forced; she would give it up for adoption instead, which is the female version of 'paper abortion'.
This is where the idea of paper abortion for men comes from.
There are even rare cases where women went digging through the trash of famous people they've had sex with to impregnate themselves. There are also plenty of stories of women sabotaging birth control to "baby trap" a man.
With our current laws, in many places, the male is forced to pay child support in this case (a failed attempt made the news recently: https://www.jacarandafm.com/news/entertainment/model-wants-s..., with more details here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_theft) or have other responsibilities not because of birth control being unreliable, but because of the malicious intent of others.
"If the baby is yours it's your problem" is too simplistic and causes legal issues in cases like these.
Most western countries recognize verbal and other non-written contracts. The clearest example I can see here is the UK's law about weather the genetic father is the legal father. If the child was conceived through sexual intercourse then the genetic father is always the legal father.