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

[Cecilie1200]

Until it is a man's life and health at risk in a pregnancy...they can sit down and STFU. They can have an opinion, but have no say.

Yeah, when half of your genetic code is at stake, you have a say. Without a man and his sperm, your choice, your agenda, is nonexistent.

When a man can grow a womb and put their health at risk they have a say. Since that is not yet scientifically possible, they have an opinion only.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2011/11/01/health/multiple-pregnancies-mother/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate whether or not a man has a say in the reproductive process.

Until a woman can evolve the ability to reproduce asexually, without the need of male intervention, then men have just as much say. Whether you like it or not.

You're right, the law does. The law says it's a decision for a woman to make.

The law can be changed, much to your dismay.

The woman made her choice that very night. The results should therefore be out of her control. You seem to forget that there were choices made leading up to the very moment of conception.

Yes, but the same is true for the man, and even more so, since HIS decision involved - as a practical matter - releasing his genetic material into the possession of another person.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

I agree men should have an equal say. If a woman says she does not want the baby, and the man does, he is absolutely within his rights to take that baby home from the hospital and raise it himself, with the woman signing away her rights and never seeing the baby again.
That is part of the reason--a good part of the reason, I believe--that women find pro-lifers to be taking away their freedom and their right to direct their own lives. Being a mother in this society means that YOU will be the primary caregiver and it will completely change your life, narrow your choices and probably, if you do not have a partner, put you in poverty.

Is the husband’s life and health at risk by the woman carrying a fetus? Does he have the right to force her to risk those things because he chose not to keep it in his pants?

Does she have the right to kill his baby because she choose to spread her legs and fly?

Does he have the right to force her to give birth when he chooses to spread his seed and fly?

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

I agree men should have an equal say. If a woman says she does not want the baby, and the man does, he is absolutely within his rights to take that baby home from the hospital and raise it himself, with the woman signing away her rights and never seeing the baby again.
That is part of the reason--a good part of the reason, I believe--that women find pro-lifers to be taking away their freedom and their right to direct their own lives. Being a mother in this society means that YOU will be the primary caregiver and it will completely change your life, narrow your choices and probably, if you do not have a partner, put you in poverty.

Is the husband’s life and health at risk by the woman carrying a fetus? Does he have the right to force her to risk those things because he chose not to keep it in his pants?

Does she have the right to kill his baby because she choose to spread her legs and fly?

Does he have the right to force her to give birth when he chooses to spread his seed and fly?

Answer my question first.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I agree men should have an equal say. If a woman says she does not want the baby, and the man does, he is absolutely within his rights to take that baby home from the hospital and raise it himself, with the woman signing away her rights and never seeing the baby again.
That is part of the reason--a good part of the reason, I believe--that women find pro-lifers to be taking away their freedom and their right to direct their own lives. Being a mother in this society means that YOU will be the primary caregiver and it will completely change your life, narrow your choices and probably, if you do not have a partner, put you in poverty.

Is the husband’s life and health at risk by the woman carrying a fetus? Does he have the right to force her to risk those things because he chose not to keep it in his pants?

A husband who would insist a woman carry through with a high risk pregnancy against her wishes is not much of a husband. I know a lot of women who risk their lives to have a baby, and that is their choice, I guess, although it's pretty hard on those who love her and care about her.

You make it sound as if a woman's health is always at risk though, which isn't the case. It might be annoying and uncomfortable, but most pregnancies do not do any damage.

You do seem to run and hide behind the hard cases with tedious regularity. We're talking about general pregnancy, and right away, you're insisting on ASSuming a high-risk scenario involved.

It's almost like you have no real argument on which to base your positions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I agree men should have an equal say. If a woman says she does not want the baby, and the man does, he is absolutely within his rights to take that baby home from the hospital and raise it himself, with the woman signing away her rights and never seeing the baby again.
That is part of the reason--a good part of the reason, I believe--that women find pro-lifers to be taking away their freedom and their right to direct their own lives. Being a mother in this society means that YOU will be the primary caregiver and it will completely change your life, narrow your choices and probably, if you do not have a partner, put you in poverty.

Is the husband’s life and health at risk by the woman carrying a fetus? Does he have the right to force her to risk those things because he chose not to keep it in his pants?

Does she have the right to kill his baby because she choose to spread her legs and fly?

Well, "right" is a whole other issue. But as a practical matter, she has the ability, because she has possession of it and he doesn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not all men were stronger then all women (though most were). Women could have done all of that if men were not around. And inferring that only men could write the laws is staggeringly misogynistic.

The ONLY reason women were treated as sub-human was because men wanted to and were stronger.

This idiot even contradicts himself. I have neither desire nor need to try to educate a fool. It's an impossible task worthy of being paid, so now you can claim victory, idiot! It is impossible to educate an idiot with what involves years and years of study that the inescapable truth is that:

• Man is bigger and stronger than women. More so in the past. Centuries ago, the small, frail man simply didn't survive long. If disease didn't get him, he succumb to the aggressions of other men. Women like "Xena the Warrior" is a fantasy almost entirely the construct of modern TV.
  
• All of the archeological evidence shows man throughout history as the hunter / warrior building territory, tribes and shelters and women as the protected home maker.
• To this day, primitive tribes in Borneo et al., still emulate these behaviors.

Show me a time in history before the modern era when women hunted and governed and man made the home?
Show me a time in history before the modern era when women participated in government over man and wrote the laws?
Show me a time in history when women commanded armies, built cities and forged nations?
Tell us why then women only began to get basic rights commonly shared by men in the mid-19th century with the woman's suffrage movement?
In many ways, women have been the most oppressed class of humankind, perhaps more so than even Blacks and others.
Only through force of modern society where technology and laws allow a woman to basically buy, rent or borrow every skill and service men used to provide do nearly all women live fully autonomous.

• Law allows them to pursue skills and jobs now where usually their mind and other skills short of strength, etc., are needed in their job that never existed before.
• With newfound earning power they can rent or buy a home made by someone else.
• They can hire someone to perform most any home task (painting, yard, roof, carpentry, etc.).
• They can adopt or even have a child out of wedlock (artificial insemination).
  
• The law protects them and gives them standing in the community, police, etc., that they no longer need a man's protection.

Ten thousand things have conspired over the past century and more to slowly elevate women to full autonomy and make them an equal in the modern society. That could only have come about if at one time they WEREN'T. Biology got us through 5 million years of harsh survival, now in the last 0.002% of man's history, biology has taken a sideline to engineered civilization.

LOL...first you say you are not going to 'educate' me...then you won't stop trying!?! LOL.

And your reading comprehension seems lacking...there was no contradiction. My point was that men were jerks and kept women down. And the reason they could keep them down was their physical strength. The latter was the assistance of the enforcement of the flaw...not the cause of it. Sheesh.

You continue to confuse outcome with biological inevitability. In that case - then your theories about slavery must be flat out disgusting.

Anyway...I am not wasting any more time reading your fluff until you answer my question from above:

Show me a link to unbiased, factual proof that women could not have survived without men from the beginning (assuming they could procreate without men)?


BTW - the fact that you call grown women 'girls' in 2019 (while claiming to be SO smart and SO educated) speaks MASSIVE VOLUMES about you.
And they AIN'T good.

Oh for God's sake --- GROW UP. Everyone here is tired of your pathetic, 4th grade rants and ploys. For that matter, every thread hijacked by some adolescent buffoon like you. If you don't agree with me, fine. Think what you damn want, ignore thousands of years of recorded history, but at least be man enough to stop being so threatened by any idea just because it offends your own fragile ideology.

And yet again the GIANT misogynist has a hissy fit and refuses to provide the post that I have asked for:

show me a link to unbiased, factual proof that women could not have survived without men from the beginning (assuming they could procreate without men)?


BTW - the fact you call grown women 'girls' - despite claiming to be vastly smart/educated - is evidence that you have no women of strength in your life. Maybe never have.
No grown women that I have known (past 25-30) who possessed any substantial inner strength/intelligence/confidence would let a man she was familiar with refer to her as a 'girl'.

Common sense would tell you that women didn't have the ability to survive without men to protect them in any world which had men in it, until such time as technology advanced sufficiently to give women the ability to defend themselves against men.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So his 50% isn't as strong as hers?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

yet it is the woman who is stuck with the baby after the male ***** her and dumps her.

when YOU demand that MEN be 1/2 responsible for all children they spawn I might accept your premise.

Well, the law holds the man responsible for the child . . . IF it can find him. But that presumes the mother A) knows who he is, and B) knows some information about him.

 

[NotYourBody]

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

Don't you think the wide availability of assault weapons even things out a bit?

 

[satrebil]

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

Don't you think the wide availability of assault weapons even things out a bit?

Nope. Most women, by their very nature, are submissive and non-confrontational. We don't see armies of women for a reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just a thought, back in the 1970s a tennis match between a world class pro (King) and a male non pro tennis player(forgot his name) and men thought he would win. and bet money on it. common sense would have dictated that a pro would beat a non pro. men continue to fight hard to keep women subservient, that's why men are so vocal on abortion.

I hate to break it to you, but most polls show that men are slightly more in favor of abortion than women are.

It's almost as if this is a difference in beliefs, rather than a difference in gender.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why is it that leftists are always "I am woman, hear me roar" but when it comes to matters of sex they portray women as helpless victims and not willing participants? The cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze.

I'm still confused as to why leftists keep insisting that all women think alike, as though we're mindless hive drones instead of thinking individuals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

Don't you think the wide availability of assault weapons even things out a bit?

Nope. Most women, by their very nature, are submissive and non-confrontational. We don't see armies of women for a reason.

I prefer to think of it as being smart enough to get the men to go do it for us.

 

[satrebil]

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

Don't you think the wide availability of assault weapons even things out a bit?

Nope. Most women, by their very nature, are submissive and non-confrontational. We don't see armies of women for a reason.

I prefer to think of it as being smart enough to get the men to go do it for us.

LMAO, well there's that too

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

I agree men should have an equal say. If a woman says she does not want the baby, and the man does, he is absolutely within his rights to take that baby home from the hospital and raise it himself, with the woman signing away her rights and never seeing the baby again.
That is part of the reason--a good part of the reason, I believe--that women find pro-lifers to be taking away their freedom and their right to direct their own lives. Being a mother in this society means that YOU will be the primary caregiver and it will completely change your life, narrow your choices and probably, if you do not have a partner, put you in poverty.

Is the husband’s life and health at risk by the woman carrying a fetus? Does he have the right to force her to risk those things because he chose not to keep it in his pants?

Does she have the right to kill his baby because she choose to spread her legs and fly?

Does he have the right to force her to give birth when he chooses to spread his seed and fly?

Answer my question first.

In other words..ya got nothing and so chose to deflect...stupid kid games.
She has the right to do as she wishes because it is her body..and anything that infringes on that is making her less--not that i expect you to understand that..or answer my question in any cogent way.

 

[Seawytch]

Until it is a man's life and health at risk in a pregnancy...they can sit down and STFU. They can have an opinion, but have no say.

. . . Unless they agree with you, in which case they should not only speak at length, but also lecture actual women on what's best in the most patronizing, misogynist tone of voice possible.

If they agree with me on a woman's right to make their own healthcare choices regarding their own bodies, it still doesn't matter. They can have an opinion but have no say.

 

[satrebil]

Until it is a man's life and health at risk in a pregnancy...they can sit down and STFU. They can have an opinion, but have no say.

. . . Unless they agree with you, in which case they should not only speak at length, but also lecture actual women on what's best in the most patronizing, misogynist tone of voice possible.

If they agree with me on a woman's right to make their own healthcare choices regarding their own bodies, it still doesn't matter. They can have an opinion but have no say.

But I do have a say. Do you know why? Because I have a vote.

And there isn't **** all you can do about it, cupcake.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Until it is a man's life and health at risk in a pregnancy...they can sit down and STFU. They can have an opinion, but have no say.

. . . Unless they agree with you, in which case they should not only speak at length, but also lecture actual women on what's best in the most patronizing, misogynist tone of voice possible.

If they agree with me on a woman's right to make their own healthcare choices regarding their own bodies, it still doesn't matter. They can have an opinion but have no say.

Yeah, and I'll believe that the day I see you telling a leftist pro-abort male to "sit down and STFU" the way you routinely do pro-life men. Or, for that matter, defend MY alleged superior right to have a say on abortion since I'm a woman, despite the fact that I'm a pro-life woman.

Your keyboard says, "Sure, I'm all about women's rights", but your actions say, "I'm all about people who agree with me."

 

[Seawytch]

Until it is a man's life and health at risk in a pregnancy...they can sit down and STFU. They can have an opinion, but have no say.

. . . Unless they agree with you, in which case they should not only speak at length, but also lecture actual women on what's best in the most patronizing, misogynist tone of voice possible.

If they agree with me on a woman's right to make their own healthcare choices regarding their own bodies, it still doesn't matter. They can have an opinion but have no say.

But I do have a say. Do you know why? Because I have a vote.

And there isn't **** all you can do about it, cupcake.

Making abortion a criminal offense doesn't stop abortions. Rich women will pay for safe abortions and poor women will get unsafe ones. I want to stop unnecessary abortions. You want more Gosnells.

Oh, and most VOTERS agree with me that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

 

[Seawytch]

Until it is a man's life and health at risk in a pregnancy...they can sit down and STFU. They can have an opinion, but have no say.

. . . Unless they agree with you, in which case they should not only speak at length, but also lecture actual women on what's best in the most patronizing, misogynist tone of voice possible.

If they agree with me on a woman's right to make their own healthcare choices regarding their own bodies, it still doesn't matter. They can have an opinion but have no say.

Yeah, and I'll believe that the day I see you telling a leftist pro-abort male to "sit down and STFU" the way you routinely do pro-life men. Or, for that matter, defend MY alleged superior right to have a say on abortion since I'm a woman, despite the fact that I'm a pro-life woman.

Your keyboard says, "Sure, I'm all about women's rights", but your actions say, "I'm all about people who agree with me."

Why should I tell someone to STFU if they aren't telling me what to do with my body? Find another obsession to pick a stupid fight with.