> Going down this ethical train of thought, one could argue that sexual intercourse only implies consent for sexual intercourse, not consent for reproduction.

> Going down this ethical train of thought, one could argue that sexual intercourse only implies consent for sexual intercourse, not consent for reproduction. Then you may wish to have family law changed in (e.g.) the province of Ontario: > 7 (1) The person whose sperm resulted in the conception of a child conceived through sexual intercourse is, and shall be recognized in law to be, a parent of the child. 2016, c. 23, s. 1 (1). * https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c12#BK9 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c12#BK9 Pregnancy is an easily foreseen consequence of having sex, and so being held (civilly) liable for actions is perfectly reasonable. Or, as old meme/trope goes: f*ck around and find out. * https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/personal-injury-basics/what-is-foreseeability-in-a-personal-injury-case.html https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/personal-... * https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreseeability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreseeability