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

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Mar 30, 2013
50,223
13,600
2,190
The Land of Sanctuary
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.
 
If your spouse and child are both overboard, one on the port side the other on the starboard side. You only have one life preserver, and you can only save one. Who do you save?

Men: Save the wife, we can make more children.

Women: Save the Child, I can always find another man.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

Responsible men won't put themselves in that position to begin with.

Uh, what is that supposed to mean?

Why is it solely up to the man to be 'responsible'? Do male and females have the same capacity for better judgement?
 
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?
 
If your spouse and child are both overboard, one on the port side the other on the starboard side. You only have one life preserver, and you can only save one. Who do you save?

Men: Save the wife, we can make more children.

Women: Save the Child, I can always find another man.

Given that there are billions of either gender on this planet, that choice is easy. Save the child.

...
 
If a man wants to have a baby...fine. Find yourself a willing partner.

Trying to force your desires on an UNWILLING "sperm recipient" is beyond strange
 
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?

Your lack of basic understanding of how the human procreative process works is astounding.

Read the very first sentence in my OP again.

If there is no male to fertilize the egg, the egg won't divide. Therefore there will be no fetus, and no risk to life on behalf of the woman.

Women aren't like cars, you can't hotwire them. You need a key to turn the engine. A man.

Simply put.
 
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?

Your lack of basic understanding of how the human procreative process works is astounding.

Read the very first sentence in my OP again.

If there is no male to fertilize the egg, the egg won't divide. Therefore there will be no fetus, and no risk to life on behalf of the woman.

Women aren't like cars, you can't hotwire them. You need a key to turn the engine. A man.

Simply put.
Cool. Stay a virgin and you won’t have this problem.
 
If a man wants to have a baby...fine. Find yourself a willing partner.

Trying to force your desires on an UNWILLING "sperm recipient" is beyond strange

I never mentioned forcing anything.

The life of an unborn child should be left up to the arbitrary whims of just one person. Said no one ever.
 
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?

Your lack of basic understanding of how the human procreative process works is astounding.

Read the very first sentence in my OP again.

If there is no male to fertilize the egg, the egg won't divide. Therefore there will be no fetus, and no risk to life on behalf of the woman.

Women aren't like cars, you can't hotwire them. You need a key to turn the engine. A man.

Simply put.
Cool. Stay a virgin and you won’t have this problem.

Thing is, I am. And, unlike you, I adhere to my morals. If a woman doesn't want to screw me and I don't want to screw her, it's better we don't meet and make a mistake we will BOTH regret.

Curious, what if all the men in the world chose to be virgins?

The human race would die. Quickly.
 
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.


In the absolute biological sense taking away all of the accoutrements of modern civilization going down through the millennia since ancient times, the man was the deciding factor. He found a mate having desirable qualities and selected her for insemination. The woman was absolutely dependent on the man. He provided the cave, he hunted the animals for food, he fought off others who would harm or take her. She became pregnant and had his child. The woman was carrier and incubator. Abortion was not an option.

We live in a totally artificial construct of modern society now where women choose the man, perhaps no man at all and just get a test tube, or get an abortion. Now such masculine advances without the female's "permission" is called "rape." And we give the woman a choice whether to carry the child or to abort it like yesterday's lunch. And of course, the man's wishes or desires are not factored into the abortion at all, because that would in effect be admitting that the child is really his and the girl a mere carrier rather than consider it part of "her body."

Oh what a tangled web we weave in turning 5 million years of evolution and tradition on its head and calling it "civilization."
 
If a man wants to have a baby...fine. Find yourself a willing partner.

Trying to force your desires on an UNWILLING "sperm recipient" is beyond strange

I never mentioned forcing anything.

The life of an unborn child should be left up to the arbitrary whims of just one person. Said no one ever.
You didn't?

You appear to be saying that the man should have control over whether the results of a sexual interaction should lead to a child being born.

If that's your desire...discuss it with the woman before you drop trou dude.

If she's not on board...find somewhere else to dump your load.

It just ain't that complicated
 
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.

a) what a ridiculously asinine (and misogynistic) thread.
b) you do NOT speak for me so you do NOT speak for all men.
c) you are not very up-to-date on science (no surprise there). Men are not needed in the reproductive cycle...pally boy.

Death of the father: British scientists discover how to turn women's bone marrow into sperm | Daily Mail Online

Why are pro-'life' people almost always SO stupid sounding?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top