Let's hear it for the men, the other half of the reproductive process

[Cecilie1200]

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

I see... so the man is practically irrelevant past a certain point. It is a position I don't like, but one that makes the most sense. Logic wins again.

No, not irrelevant at all. Fathers are immensely important in a child's life. It's more a matter of "If you choose badly in distributing your genetic material, you are choosing to relegate yourself to a secondary and vulnerable position."

To put it another way, your child needs you very badly, and needs very badly for you to make good choices about his life. The first one he needs you to make well is the choice of his mother.

That is... one hell of a response. And something I can live with.

Why, thank you. Life is hard and complicated, but the fact that reality is tough and a decision is tough should never make you think it's the wrong decision. Many times, that's how you know it's the right one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"the person with possession is the person with the decision-making power"

Playing devils advocate here:

How do you reconcile that statement with your pro life stance? Knowing that she could ultimately decide to kill the child in the womb?

I have a ton of questions and I know you don't have time to go over them all. I am in the process of changing my views on the abortion issue right now. Pro life as I may be, I would say the woman has the right to choose, but that the very act of abortion itself is...

I don't know. Not anymore.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

I see... so the man is practically irrelevant past a certain point. It is a position I don't like, but one that makes the most sense. Logic wins again.

No, not irrelevant at all. Fathers are immensely important in a child's life. It's more a matter of "If you choose badly in distributing your genetic material, you are choosing to relegate yourself to a secondary and vulnerable position."

To put it another way, your child needs you very badly, and needs very badly for you to make good choices about his life. The first one he needs you to make well is the choice of his mother.

That is... one hell of a response. And something I can live with.

Why, thank you. Life is hard and complicated, but the fact that reality is tough and a decision is tough should never make you think it's the wrong decision. Many times, that's how you know it's the right one.

Hooo boy. That quite literally blew my mind. Wisdom of a sage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"the person with possession is the person with the decision-making power"

Playing devils advocate here:

How do you reconcile that statement with your pro life stance? Knowing that she could ultimately decide to kill the child in the womb?

I have a ton of questions and I know you don't have time to go over them all. I am in the process of changing my views on the abortion issue right now. Pro life as I may be, I would say the woman has the right to choose, but that the very act of abortion itself is...

I don't know. Not anymore.

God gave us free will. Inherent in the concept of free will is the ability to use it badly. My pro-life stance is that killing the baby is a bad, wrong, and immoral choice to make; it isn't that no choice exists. Again, as I said, a mother after the child is born ALSO has possession of the child, and could conceivably choose to kill that child. Hey, look at that chick in Texas (I think it was) who drowned all of her children in a fit of depression. Clearly, the person who has possession of the child at any point in time has the ability to decide to kill the child. Obviously, I would prefer that they choose not to, and I don't think society should condone and encourage doing so by making it legal to.

I will answer whatever questions you want to ask. It may or may not take me some time to get to it, since I'm at work and things kinda run in bursts of activity.

First off, I'm going to say that people in this country are far too prone to use the language of "rights" in relation to everything, whether it's appropriate or not. It's rather ironic that a country in which protection of rights is so foundational has a population which is so ignorant on the subject of what rights actually are.

It helps a lot if you try to think of things in more practical, reality-based terms and then apply philosophy very carefully to that. Always remember what I said before: Nature doesn't give a damn about human philosophies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

I see... so the man is practically irrelevant past a certain point. It is a position I don't like, but one that makes the most sense. Logic wins again.

No, not irrelevant at all. Fathers are immensely important in a child's life. It's more a matter of "If you choose badly in distributing your genetic material, you are choosing to relegate yourself to a secondary and vulnerable position."

To put it another way, your child needs you very badly, and needs very badly for you to make good choices about his life. The first one he needs you to make well is the choice of his mother.

That is... one hell of a response. And something I can live with.

Why, thank you. Life is hard and complicated, but the fact that reality is tough and a decision is tough should never make you think it's the wrong decision. Many times, that's how you know it's the right one.

Hooo boy. That quite literally blew my mind. Wisdom of a sage.

Wisdom of a coldhearted ***** (That actually was my online screenname for years). Not that I don't have emotions; I'm just not overly impressed by them. And I know that no one and nothing else in the universe is overly impressed by them, which gives a pretty clear perspective on how important they should be considered.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So... what I have learned so far is:

1) Women have the right to choose.

2) Men have the right to choose wisely.

...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So... what I have learned so far is:

1) Women have the right to choose.

2) Men have the right to choose wisely.

...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're talking to me, then you're wrong, because you're still trying to apply "rights" to everything. Wrong language set, like using construction terminology in a medical file.

What you should learn is that everyone has choices, and for all of us, the time to make those choices is a lot earlier than when we're trying to make them. Anyone who's bitching about "being denied their choice" on this subject needs to recognize that they GOT their choice, and they wasted it by making it carelessly and badly, and what they're really asking for now is a do-over. The universe doesn't give mulligans.

That's about the size of it: a woman doesn't get to remake the decision to get pregnant once she's already pregnant. What she's really doing is deciding whether or not she wants to be the mother of a dead baby, or the mother of a live one. Because the "pregnant or not-pregnant" bell has already been rung, and you can't make it not-have-happened.

Likewise, as a practical matter, the time for a man to decide whether or not he's okay with a woman aborting his baby is BEFORE HE HAS SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, because - again, as a practical matter - there's not really anything he can do about it after she's already got the bun in the oven. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned and every state in the nation passed laws banning abortion, how's he going to stop her from - for example - leaving the country to do it?

Trying to talk about this strictly in the language of "rights" is basically trying to pretend that lofty philosophical ponderings can somehow adjust the universe to fit human concepts of "fairness". Thomas Sowell calls it "the quest for cosmic justice". Problem is, the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about human justice.

EVERYONE needs to make their choices wisely, and the first step in doing that is recognizing WHEN those choices are, and that bleating about "rights" afterward is not going to give you the ability to unmake those choices. It's just making a second bad choice on top of the first one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So... what I have learned so far is:

1) Women have the right to choose.

2) Men have the right to choose wisely.

...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're talking to me, then you're wrong, because you're still trying to apply "rights" to everything. Wrong language set, like using construction terminology in a medical file.

What you should learn is that everyone has choices, and for all of us, the time to make those choices is a lot earlier than when we're trying to make them. Anyone who's bitching about "being denied their choice" on this subject needs to recognize that they GOT their choice, and they wasted it by making it carelessly and badly, and what they're really asking for now is a do-over. The universe doesn't give mulligans.

That's about the size of it: a woman doesn't get to remake the decision to get pregnant once she's already pregnant. What she's really doing is deciding whether or not she wants to be the mother of a dead baby, or the mother of a live one. Because the "pregnant or not-pregnant" bell has already been rung, and you can't make it not-have-happened.

Likewise, as a practical matter, the time for a man to decide whether or not he's okay with a woman aborting his baby is BEFORE HE HAS SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, because - again, as a practical matter - there's not really anything he can do about it after she's already got the bun in the oven. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned and every state in the nation passed laws banning abortion, how's he going to stop her from - for example - leaving the country to do it?

Trying to talk about this strictly in the language of "rights" is basically trying to pretend that lofty philosophical ponderings can somehow adjust the universe to fit human concepts of "fairness". Thomas Sowell calls it "the quest for cosmic justice". Problem is, the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about human justice.

EVERYONE needs to make their choices wisely, and the first step in doing that is recognizing WHEN those choices are, and that bleating about "rights" afterward is not going to give you the ability to unmake those choices. It's just making a second bad choice on top of the first one.

This was quite edifying.

It's more a matter of critical judgement and timing, then.

Or, quite simply put, common sense.

Decisions regarding procreation cannot be undone. The wrong decisions on both sides can (or will) lead to a traumatic experience.

I think I understand.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Without the male spermatezoa, all of the females of our species wouldn't have a choice to make. No sperm, no fertilized egg, no pregnancy, no choice to make. No us.

No offense, but speaking on behalf of all the men in the world, we seem to be the catalyst for that choice, IE, we are just as critical to human procreation as the woman is.

Therefore, I contend, men have an equal say in the reproductive process and the decision whether or not the fully healthy woman he inseminated should have an abortion.

Think about it. The man wants the child, but for some reason the woman doesn't. Why is the choice to arbitrarily exterminate the growing life in the womb exclusively hers?

The entire "pro choice" argument is misandrous (sexist toward men). That's the bottom line. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, comment or put me on your ignore list. I'm a free thinker, not a conformist.

If you follow me solely because you assume I agree with you politically, you are no more of a kindred spirit to me than the vacuum of space is to the prospects of life.

That's it, that's all.

Keep it in your pants. Don’t want to be part of an abortion, don’t impregnate a woman. Some chicks you fucked might have already had abortions and you’d never know about it. Shows how little you care.

So, how many different baby mommas have you impregnatrd?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So... what I have learned so far is:

1) Women have the right to choose.

2) Men have the right to choose wisely.

...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're talking to me, then you're wrong, because you're still trying to apply "rights" to everything. Wrong language set, like using construction terminology in a medical file.

What you should learn is that everyone has choices, and for all of us, the time to make those choices is a lot earlier than when we're trying to make them. Anyone who's bitching about "being denied their choice" on this subject needs to recognize that they GOT their choice, and they wasted it by making it carelessly and badly, and what they're really asking for now is a do-over. The universe doesn't give mulligans.

That's about the size of it: a woman doesn't get to remake the decision to get pregnant once she's already pregnant. What she's really doing is deciding whether or not she wants to be the mother of a dead baby, or the mother of a live one. Because the "pregnant or not-pregnant" bell has already been rung, and you can't make it not-have-happened.

Likewise, as a practical matter, the time for a man to decide whether or not he's okay with a woman aborting his baby is BEFORE HE HAS SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, because - again, as a practical matter - there's not really anything he can do about it after she's already got the bun in the oven. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned and every state in the nation passed laws banning abortion, how's he going to stop her from - for example - leaving the country to do it?

Trying to talk about this strictly in the language of "rights" is basically trying to pretend that lofty philosophical ponderings can somehow adjust the universe to fit human concepts of "fairness". Thomas Sowell calls it "the quest for cosmic justice". Problem is, the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about human justice.

EVERYONE needs to make their choices wisely, and the first step in doing that is recognizing WHEN those choices are, and that bleating about "rights" afterward is not going to give you the ability to unmake those choices. It's just making a second bad choice on top of the first one.

This was quite edifying.

It's more a matter of critical judgement and timing, then.

Or, quite simply put, common sense.

Decisions regarding procreation cannot be undone. The wrong decisions on both sides can (or will) lead to a traumatic experience.

I think I understand.

That's about the gist of it.

 

[BlackFlag]

Without the male spermatezoa, all of the females of our species wouldn't have a choice to make. No sperm, no fertilized egg, no pregnancy, no choice to make. No us.

No offense, but speaking on behalf of all the men in the world, we seem to be the catalyst for that choice, IE, we are just as critical to human procreation as the woman is.

Therefore, I contend, men have an equal say in the reproductive process and the decision whether or not the fully healthy woman he inseminated should have an abortion.

Think about it. The man wants the child, but for some reason the woman doesn't. Why is the choice to arbitrarily exterminate the growing life in the womb exclusively hers?

The entire "pro choice" argument is misandrous (sexist toward men). That's the bottom line. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, comment or put me on your ignore list. I'm a free thinker, not a conformist.

If you follow me solely because you assume I agree with you politically, you are no more of a kindred spirit to me than the vacuum of space is to the prospects of life.

That's it, that's all.

Keep it in your pants. Don’t want to be part of an abortion, don’t impregnate a woman. Some chicks you fucked might have already had abortions and you’d never know about it. Shows how little you care.

So, how many different baby mommas have you impregnatrd?

To my knowledge, zero. But they may have had abortions or even a kid. I don’t know or care.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Without the male spermatezoa, all of the females of our species wouldn't have a choice to make. No sperm, no fertilized egg, no pregnancy, no choice to make. No us.

No offense, but speaking on behalf of all the men in the world, we seem to be the catalyst for that choice, IE, we are just as critical to human procreation as the woman is.

Therefore, I contend, men have an equal say in the reproductive process and the decision whether or not the fully healthy woman he inseminated should have an abortion.

Think about it. The man wants the child, but for some reason the woman doesn't. Why is the choice to arbitrarily exterminate the growing life in the womb exclusively hers?

The entire "pro choice" argument is misandrous (sexist toward men). That's the bottom line. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, comment or put me on your ignore list. I'm a free thinker, not a conformist.

If you follow me solely because you assume I agree with you politically, you are no more of a kindred spirit to me than the vacuum of space is to the prospects of life.

That's it, that's all.

Keep it in your pants. Don’t want to be part of an abortion, don’t impregnate a woman. Some chicks you fucked might have already had abortions and you’d never know about it. Shows how little you care.

So, how many different baby mommas have you impregnatrd?

To my knowledge, zero. But they may have had abortions or even a kid. I don’t know or care.

You don't know or care.

Thanks for revealing the depth of your hypocrisy .

 

[TemplarKormac]

So... what I have learned so far is:

1) Women have the right to choose.

2) Men have the right to choose wisely.

...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're talking to me, then you're wrong, because you're still trying to apply "rights" to everything. Wrong language set, like using construction terminology in a medical file.

What you should learn is that everyone has choices, and for all of us, the time to make those choices is a lot earlier than when we're trying to make them. Anyone who's bitching about "being denied their choice" on this subject needs to recognize that they GOT their choice, and they wasted it by making it carelessly and badly, and what they're really asking for now is a do-over. The universe doesn't give mulligans.

That's about the size of it: a woman doesn't get to remake the decision to get pregnant once she's already pregnant. What she's really doing is deciding whether or not she wants to be the mother of a dead baby, or the mother of a live one. Because the "pregnant or not-pregnant" bell has already been rung, and you can't make it not-have-happened.

Likewise, as a practical matter, the time for a man to decide whether or not he's okay with a woman aborting his baby is BEFORE HE HAS SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, because - again, as a practical matter - there's not really anything he can do about it after she's already got the bun in the oven. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned and every state in the nation passed laws banning abortion, how's he going to stop her from - for example - leaving the country to do it?

Trying to talk about this strictly in the language of "rights" is basically trying to pretend that lofty philosophical ponderings can somehow adjust the universe to fit human concepts of "fairness". Thomas Sowell calls it "the quest for cosmic justice". Problem is, the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about human justice.

EVERYONE needs to make their choices wisely, and the first step in doing that is recognizing WHEN those choices are, and that bleating about "rights" afterward is not going to give you the ability to unmake those choices. It's just making a second bad choice on top of the first one.

This was quite edifying.

It's more a matter of critical judgement and timing, then.

Or, quite simply put, common sense.

Decisions regarding procreation cannot be undone. The wrong decisions on both sides can (or will) lead to a traumatic experience.

I think I understand.

That's about the gist of it.

Now... if only debates like this could happen all around politics more often.

Fantastical, I know. One can dream can't they?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I JUST GOT MY ASS HANDED TO ME IN THE MOST POLITE WAY POSSIBLE!

aaronleland, you should try it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So... what I have learned so far is:

1) Women have the right to choose.

2) Men have the right to choose wisely.

...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're talking to me, then you're wrong, because you're still trying to apply "rights" to everything. Wrong language set, like using construction terminology in a medical file.

What you should learn is that everyone has choices, and for all of us, the time to make those choices is a lot earlier than when we're trying to make them. Anyone who's bitching about "being denied their choice" on this subject needs to recognize that they GOT their choice, and they wasted it by making it carelessly and badly, and what they're really asking for now is a do-over. The universe doesn't give mulligans.

That's about the size of it: a woman doesn't get to remake the decision to get pregnant once she's already pregnant. What she's really doing is deciding whether or not she wants to be the mother of a dead baby, or the mother of a live one. Because the "pregnant or not-pregnant" bell has already been rung, and you can't make it not-have-happened.

Likewise, as a practical matter, the time for a man to decide whether or not he's okay with a woman aborting his baby is BEFORE HE HAS SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, because - again, as a practical matter - there's not really anything he can do about it after she's already got the bun in the oven. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned and every state in the nation passed laws banning abortion, how's he going to stop her from - for example - leaving the country to do it?

Trying to talk about this strictly in the language of "rights" is basically trying to pretend that lofty philosophical ponderings can somehow adjust the universe to fit human concepts of "fairness". Thomas Sowell calls it "the quest for cosmic justice". Problem is, the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about human justice.

EVERYONE needs to make their choices wisely, and the first step in doing that is recognizing WHEN those choices are, and that bleating about "rights" afterward is not going to give you the ability to unmake those choices. It's just making a second bad choice on top of the first one.

This was quite edifying.

It's more a matter of critical judgement and timing, then.

Or, quite simply put, common sense.

Decisions regarding procreation cannot be undone. The wrong decisions on both sides can (or will) lead to a traumatic experience.

I think I understand.

That's about the gist of it.

Now... if only debates like this could happen all around politics more often.

Fantastical, I know. One can dream can't they?

Well, in all fairness, if leftists were able to debate like me and comprehend what I'm saying, they wouldn't be leftists and there wouldn't be much of a debate to be had.