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

[Crixus]

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.

^ spoken by a dude who has fucked his fist more times then woman.

 

[BlindBoo]

If men all stopped having sex

Ha! If, is the most powerful word in the entire universe.

Science has also nullified many natural childhood diseases and conditions that contributed to high infant mortality rates. We don't need to have so many children anymore.

What are you suggesting?

That we resort to eugenics?

Education and Birth Control would be my first choice, with abortion the last.

I never said anything about selective breeding in humans. Why would you go there?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Education and Birth Control would be my first choice, with abortion the last.

I never said anything about selective breeding in humans. Why would you go there?

Why would I go there?

"We don't need to have so many children anymore" you said.

 

[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.

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.

It IS always at risk. You don’t know what will happen.

 

[MisterBeale]

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?

 

[Crixus]

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.

Going by what you said, a woman would have had to be okay with getting pregnant, baring rape, then, change their minds later. No pregnancy is “high risk” tight then. There are health issues beforehand. It’s really a non issue because there is birth control. In my mind, a woman who knows beforehand that they have a condition that would make child birth, which is already dangerous, go’s ahead and screws around is using abortions as birth control and is just stupid and selfish. That person needs to be sterilized on abortion 1.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

Exactly! As men we have a choice as well..to use Birth Control..i.e. prophylactics. If we choose to only inseminate in marriage..and we marry women who believe as we do--the issue becomes moot..one would think.

It is not our choice once the process has begun because we, as men, abrogated that choice. Often, women who face the hard choice of what to do with an unwanted pregnancy don't even have the support of the man who impregnated her.

Responsible sexual activity--is really the answer.

BTW..as another poster already said--it is possible to engender human life without the male..the female is, of course, indispensable.

 

[BlindBoo]

Education and Birth Control would be my first choice, with abortion the last.

I never said anything about selective breeding in humans. Why would you go there?

Why would I go there?

"We don't need to have so many children anymore" you said.

Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population by excluding certain genetic groups judged to be inferior, and promoting other genetic groups judged to be superior.

Nothing I've said had anything to do with the genetic make up of the children or excluding anyone from reproducing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing I've said had anything to do with the genetic make up of the children or excluding anyone from reproducing.

Population control isn't eugenics?

Curious.

Population control has been a central axis of eugenics movements across the globe for more than a century

Population control

Perhaps you should educate yourself on what eugenics is before you start spouting off at the mouth. You, taking on a eugenicist argument without knowing what it really is.

Such ignorance.

 

[Lesh]

Contraception, abstinence, self restraint. Not complicated.

Yea...well that pretty much negates this entire stupid thread

 

[BlindBoo]

Nothing I've said had anything to do with the genetic make up of the children or excluding anyone from reproducing.

Population control isn't eugenics?

Curious.

Population control has been a central axis of eugenics movements across the globe for more than a century

Population control

Perhaps you should educate yourself on what eugenics is before you start spouting off at the mouth. You, taking on a eugenicist argument without knowing what it really is.

Such ignorance.

Nope, you made it up. I never mentioned it at all. Medical science is the reason we don't need to have as many children as we did even just a few generations ago. Like I said in the original post where you copied that tiny bit from what I said, and tried to develop a false narrative to point at.

 

[toobfreak]

]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."

Holy crap...what a flood of unadulterated anger at women along with a call for their status to be changed to that of virtual sub-humans.

You don't just hate women...you want their rights to be taken away. You clearly long for the day's when women had no power, no say and were virtual slaves.

Yup...you are one sick dude...your 'woman' (if you have one) must be one pathetic bitch with zero self-esteem to want to spend her life with a guy who CLEARLY sees women as sub-human.
(and don't bother with the 'I have a gorgeous, brilliant wife who is strong-willed and adores me' crap - no one with a properly working brain and over 10 will believe you.) More likely, you are old, divorced (or in a crap marriage) and VERY bitter that women don't submit like they did at one time.

And hello dufus? A 'girl' is NOT a female adult. It's a child - a woman UNDER 18 (in America).

'girl

NOUN

• 1A female child.'

girl | Definition of girl in English by Oxford Dictionaries

I KNEW there was something sick about you. And you just proved me 100% right. You DESPISE female equality with men. ABSOLUTELY HATE IT.

SHUT UP you stupid ignorant FRAUD. I don't hate women at all, quite the opposite, I'm merely speaking (as I stated at the onset) from a purely non-politically correct biological perspective as was the case for 99.998% of man's life on the planet. Sorry if that it too blunt for your delicate PC ears. Take the rest of your stupid ignorant half-baked 5th grade assumptions and shove them up your tight puckered useless ass.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing I've said had anything to do with the genetic make up of the children or excluding anyone from reproducing.

Population control isn't eugenics?

Curious.

Population control has been a central axis of eugenics movements across the globe for more than a century

Population control

Perhaps you should educate yourself on what eugenics is before you start spouting off at the mouth. You, taking on a eugenicist argument without knowing what it really is.

Such ignorance.

Nope, you made it up. I never mentioned it at all. Medical science is the reason we don't need to have as many children as we did even just a few generations ago. Like I said in the original post where you copied that tiny bit from what I said, and tried to develop a false narrative to point at.

Yes, yes, try to skirt your way around the fact that you are a eugenicist.

Move along.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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.

Is that any less true for responsible women?

 

[imawhosure]

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."

Science has also nullified many natural childhood diseases and conditions that contributed to high infant mortality rates. We don't need to have so many children anymore. The decision to have and raise a child should be done collectively between the two parents. If you're out spreading your seed to any willing recipient, should you really have a say? It's not like we're in the primeval forest and you can drag her off to your cave anymore.

If men who are willing to force women to carry their fetus to term against their will all chose to be virgins, in a few generations we’d have wiped out many of the most violent and oppressive ideologies on Earth.

That's not what I asked. All men, regardless of ideology or alignment.

I assumed that was a rhetorical question. What if a secret lizard civiliation rises from the ground and kills us all?

My question’s more fun but we can do yours if you want.

I DON'T ASK RHETORICAL QUESTIONS.

Since you can't seem to come up with a cogent reply to my question, this exchange is meaningless.

If men all stopped having sex without a system of sperm donation in place to replace it, some women might be able to steal sperm from men for a while, but the population of humans would drop dramatically. Now let’s see where you’re going with this.

So now, instead of it being a choice, it would be a necessity? Now life is important?

Intriguing.

Funny how your views change based on what scenario the woman is faced with.

I agree with what an earlier poster stated-------------> we have created a civilization that is out of kilter to what biological roles were meant to be. Our biology drives how the genders are different, and yet government insists there is no difference between them, including under the law!

I remember when I was much younger, the Supreme Court ruled that "under the law, men and women are considered 100% equal in all matters. Women; or at least their advocates, had a cow. So, in many areas, with a wink and a nod, judges IGNORE that ruling, just as they do with abortion, because after all, is not the fetus 1/2 the males?

But let me give you a prime example of how MEN are NOT equal under the law---------------->

Scenario 1---------------> Man has 2 kids. Man finds new hottie and starts an affair. Wife finds out about hottie and tells husband, YOU ARE OUT OF HERE! Wife files for divorce, drags it out to bleed hottie chaser as dry as she can. Wife in settlement gets kids, 1/2 of husbands retirement account, gets to keep house if she so desires...…..certainly until kids turn of age, man pays child support, usually has to supply health insurance, and because he can't remove his name from his former home's mortgage, usually can't buy another one.

So ends that dirty hottie chasers life for quite awhile, and the women, the Leftists, the Judges, and Conservatives, all stand up and cheer. HE GOT WHAT he deserved is all of their mantra!

Scenario 2----------------> Husband has 2 kids with wife, and has a good job that takes him away from home for 12 hrs a day, but family lives well. Wife may, or may not work, in this scenario, it makes little difference. Wife gets bored. She decides to join a gym while the kids are in school, and the hunky trainer likes what he sees, and starts cozying up. Wife likes the attention, and one thing leads to another, and an affair starts. Husband finds out, and says I am DONE, and files for divorce. Wife smiles, looks at husband and says...….you guessed it...….YOUR OUTTA HERE! Wife drags out divorce as long as possible to punish husband who dared to walk out, bleeding him dry as much as she can, meanwhile boytoy is sleeping over in the house husband is paying for, each and every time he gets the kids. Come divorce settlement time, woman gets kids, 1/2 of husbands retirement account, house if she so desires, or again......at least until kids are of age, and because he to can't remove his name from the mortgage, he can only get an apartment. He to has to supply health insurance, and if any doctor bills accrued, he is responsible. And when she gets remarried? Why the house is still probably in his name, and now someone else is raising his kids.

HERE IS WHERE IT CHANGES------------> The women cheer because in the world according to them, she was being NEGLECTED, the LEFTISTS cheer because women in their eyes are a special interest group...…...especially if it was a Caucasian type guy, the judges cheer because they get re-elected, BUT THE CONSERVATIVES scratch their heads, and wonder how in the hell if everyone is equal under the law, this could possibly happen.

You know Leftists, kinda like Hilly getting off, while that male sailor went to jail, and yet, LEFTISTS cheer!

Now, in viewing my 2 scenarios, the 1st thing a Leftist would say is----------------> "That dumb guy made a poor choice in a wife!"

They can NOT get away with that because---------------> Under the LAW, not the suggestions but the LAW, men and women under the Supreme Court ruling are to be treated EQUAL!

Want a real life example?

You watch baseball? You know the Chicago Cubs? Ever hear of Ben Zobrist? Well, scenario 2 is playing out right there. Men have absolutely NO SHOT. Which is why...…..don't know if it is true, and I refuse to be a conspiracy theorist, but I have read that------------->

The male BIRTH CONTROL pill was developed around a decade ago in the UK. THE GOVERNMENT of the European Union put the kabosh on it.

Why?

Because from the reports, they knew that if MEN could take a pill that would prevent pregnancy, the birthrate would DROP in Europe, and Europe, even at that time, was barely keeping up with births to replacement. (in other words, they were barely replacing the people who died with new children)

And so you see gentlemen, if that report is true, not only are they telling you that you have no rights in a pregnancy if she decides to abort, you only have the right to PAY if she doesn't! And, that at least ONE government, refuses to allow you the tools, (like she has) to prevent her from getting pregnant in the 1st place, because...…..maybe...….you know, that no matter what the LAW says, your SCREWED!

So give you a choice too? Nah, nothing to see here folks, men; especially white ones, are neandrathals anyway!

 

[22lcidw]

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/

We are supposed to be evolved. All I know is that I get all the arguments and the bills for it. Ph uk u and your sex for the excuses you use as you promote yourselves in this modern age as not just requal but superior. Your not. A good start is to get the the fathers who impregnate the teenagers and put the in slave work farms. And then get the pregnant moms and after delivery do the same. This would be a down payment in giving back to the community. The American community. most of those daddy donors do no care about opinion only options. When that sex robot technology is perfected alot of men are going to say sayanara! And the protections will be reduced with it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nothing I've said had anything to do with the genetic make up of the children or excluding anyone from reproducing.

Population control isn't eugenics?

Curious.

Population control has been a central axis of eugenics movements across the globe for more than a century

Population control

Perhaps you should educate yourself on what eugenics is before you start spouting off at the mouth. You, taking on a eugenicist argument without knowing what it really is.

Such ignorance.

Nope, you made it up. I never mentioned it at all. Medical science is the reason we don't need to have as many children as we did even just a few generations ago. Like I said in the original post where you copied that tiny bit from what I said, and tried to develop a false narrative to point at.

Yes, yes, try to skirt your way around the fact that you are a eugenicist.

Move along.

It is kind of funny. You thinking the fact that we don't need to have as many children as we did in the past because of medical science is an advocation for eugenics. Even your own link defines eugenics as selective breeding. Total control of society. Not my cup of tea.

 

[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.

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."

Science has also nullified many natural childhood diseases and conditions that contributed to high infant mortality rates. We don't need to have so many children anymore. The decision to have and raise a child should be done collectively between the two parents. If you're out spreading your seed to any willing recipient, should you really have a say? It's not like we're in the primeval forest and you can drag her off to your cave anymore.

That's not what I asked. All men, regardless of ideology or alignment.

I assumed that was a rhetorical question. What if a secret lizard civiliation rises from the ground and kills us all?

My question’s more fun but we can do yours if you want.

I DON'T ASK RHETORICAL QUESTIONS.

Since you can't seem to come up with a cogent reply to my question, this exchange is meaningless.

If men all stopped having sex without a system of sperm donation in place to replace it, some women might be able to steal sperm from men for a while, but the population of humans would drop dramatically. Now let’s see where you’re going with this.

So now, instead of it being a choice, it would be a necessity? Now life is important?

Intriguing.

Funny how your views change based on what scenario the woman is faced with.

I agree with what an earlier poster stated-------------> we have created a civilization that is out of kilter to what biological roles were meant to be. Our biology drives how the genders are different, and yet government insists there is no difference between them, including under the law!

I remember when I was much younger, the Supreme Court ruled that "under the law, men and women are considered 100% equal in all matters. Women; or at least their advocates, had a cow. So, in many areas, with a wink and a nod, judges IGNORE that ruling, just as they do with abortion, because after all, is not the fetus 1/2 the males?

But let me give you a prime example of how MEN are NOT equal under the law---------------->

Scenario 1---------------> Man has 2 kids. Man finds new hottie and starts an affair. Wife finds out about hottie and tells husband, YOU ARE OUT OF HERE! Wife files for divorce, drags it out to bleed hottie chaser as dry as she can. Wife in settlement gets kids, 1/2 of husbands retirement account, gets to keep house if she so desires...…..certainly until kids turn of age, man pays child support, usually has to supply health insurance, and because he can't remove his name from his former home's mortgage, usually can't buy another one.

So ends that dirty hottie chasers life for quite awhile, and the women, the Leftists, the Judges, and Conservatives, all stand up and cheer. HE GOT WHAT he deserved is all of their mantra!

Scenario 2----------------> Husband has 2 kids with wife, and has a good job that takes him away from home for 12 hrs a day, but family lives well. Wife may, or may not work, in this scenario, it makes little difference. Wife gets bored. She decides to join a gym while the kids are in school, and the hunky trainer likes what he sees, and starts cozying up. Wife likes the attention, and one thing leads to another, and an affair starts. Husband finds out, and says I am DONE, and files for divorce. Wife smiles, looks at husband and says...….you guessed it...….YOUR OUTTA HERE! Wife drags out divorce as long as possible to punish husband who dared to walk out, bleeding him dry as much as she can, meanwhile boytoy is sleeping over in the house husband is paying for, each and every time he gets the kids. Come divorce settlement time, woman gets kids, 1/2 of husbands retirement account, house if she so desires, or again......at least until kids are of age, and because he to can't remove his name from the mortgage, he can only get an apartment. He to has to supply health insurance, and if any doctor bills accrued, he is responsible. And when she gets remarried? Why the house is still probably in his name, and now someone else is raising his kids.

HERE IS WHERE IT CHANGES------------> The women cheer because in the world according to them, she was being NEGLECTED, the LEFTISTS cheer because women in their eyes are a special interest group...…...especially if it was a Caucasian type guy, the judges cheer because they get re-elected, BUT THE CONSERVATIVES scratch their heads, and wonder how in the hell if everyone is equal under the law, this could possibly happen.

You know Leftists, kinda like Hilly getting off, while that male sailor went to jail, and yet, LEFTISTS cheer!

Now, in viewing my 2 scenarios, the 1st thing a Leftist would say is----------------> "That dumb guy made a poor choice in a wife!"

They can NOT get away with that because---------------> Under the LAW, not the suggestions but the LAW, men and women under the Supreme Court ruling are to be treated EQUAL!

Want a real life example?

You watch baseball? You know the Chicago Cubs? Ever hear of Ben Zobrist? Well, scenario 2 is playing out right there. Men have absolutely NO SHOT. Which is why...…..don't know if it is true, and I refuse to be a conspiracy theorist, but I have read that------------->

The male BIRTH CONTROL pill was developed around a decade ago in the UK. THE GOVERNMENT of the European Union put the kabosh on it.

Why?

Because from the reports, they knew that if MEN could take a pill that would prevent pregnancy, the birthrate would DROP in Europe, and Europe, even at that time, was barely keeping up with births to replacement. (in other words, they were barely replacing the people who died with new children)

And so you see gentlemen, if that report is true, not only are they telling you that you have no rights in a pregnancy if she decides to abort, you only have the right to PAY if she doesn't! And, that at least ONE government, refuses to allow you the tools, (like she has) to prevent her from getting pregnant in the 1st place, because...…..maybe...….you know, that no matter what the LAW says, your SCREWED!

So give you a choice too? Nah, nothing to see here folks, men; especially white ones, are neandrathals anyway!

Good grief

Go live a little, kid

 

[toobfreak]

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."

Science has also nullified many natural childhood diseases and conditions that contributed to high infant mortality rates. We don't need to have so many children anymore. The decision to have and raise a child should be done collectively between the two parents. If you're out spreading your seed to any willing recipient, should you really have a say? It's not like we're in the primeval forest and you can drag her off to your cave anymore.

That's not what I asked. All men, regardless of ideology or alignment.

I assumed that was a rhetorical question. What if a secret lizard civiliation rises from the ground and kills us all?

My question’s more fun but we can do yours if you want.

I DON'T ASK RHETORICAL QUESTIONS.

Since you can't seem to come up with a cogent reply to my question, this exchange is meaningless.

If men all stopped having sex without a system of sperm donation in place to replace it, some women might be able to steal sperm from men for a while, but the population of humans would drop dramatically. Now let’s see where you’re going with this.

So now, instead of it being a choice, it would be a necessity? Now life is important?

Intriguing.

Funny how your views change based on what scenario the woman is faced with.

I agree with what an earlier poster stated-------------> we have created a civilization that is out of kilter to what biological roles were meant to be. Our biology drives how the genders are different, and yet government insists there is no difference between them, including under the law!

I remember when I was much younger, the Supreme Court ruled that "under the law, men and women are considered 100% equal in all matters. Women; or at least their advocates, had a cow. So, in many areas, with a wink and a nod, judges IGNORE that ruling, just as they do with abortion, because after all, is not the fetus 1/2 the males?

But let me give you a prime example of how MEN are NOT equal under the law---------------->

Scenario 1---------------> Man has 2 kids. Man finds new hottie and starts an affair. Wife finds out about hottie and tells husband, YOU ARE OUT OF HERE! Wife files for divorce, drags it out to bleed hottie chaser as dry as she can. Wife in settlement gets kids, 1/2 of husbands retirement account, gets to keep house if she so desires...…..certainly until kids turn of age, man pays child support, usually has to supply health insurance, and because he can't remove his name from his former home's mortgage, usually can't buy another one.

So ends that dirty hottie chasers life for quite awhile, and the women, the Leftists, the Judges, and Conservatives, all stand up and cheer. HE GOT WHAT he deserved is all of their mantra!

Scenario 2----------------> Husband has 2 kids with wife, and has a good job that takes him away from home for 12 hrs a day, but family lives well. Wife may, or may not work, in this scenario, it makes little difference. Wife gets bored. She decides to join a gym while the kids are in school, and the hunky trainer likes what he sees, and starts cozying up. Wife likes the attention, and one thing leads to another, and an affair starts. Husband finds out, and says I am DONE, and files for divorce. Wife smiles, looks at husband and says...….you guessed it...….YOUR OUTTA HERE! Wife drags out divorce as long as possible to punish husband who dared to walk out, bleeding him dry as much as she can, meanwhile boytoy is sleeping over in the house husband is paying for, each and every time he gets the kids. Come divorce settlement time, woman gets kids, 1/2 of husbands retirement account, house if she so desires, or again......at least until kids are of age, and because he to can't remove his name from the mortgage, he can only get an apartment. He to has to supply health insurance, and if any doctor bills accrued, he is responsible. And when she gets remarried? Why the house is still probably in his name, and now someone else is raising his kids.

HERE IS WHERE IT CHANGES------------> The women cheer because in the world according to them, she was being NEGLECTED, the LEFTISTS cheer because women in their eyes are a special interest group...…...especially if it was a Caucasian type guy, the judges cheer because they get re-elected, BUT THE CONSERVATIVES scratch their heads, and wonder how in the hell if everyone is equal under the law, this could possibly happen.

You know Leftists, kinda like Hilly getting off, while that male sailor went to jail, and yet, LEFTISTS cheer!

Now, in viewing my 2 scenarios, the 1st thing a Leftist would say is----------------> "That dumb guy made a poor choice in a wife!"

They can NOT get away with that because---------------> Under the LAW, not the suggestions but the LAW, men and women under the Supreme Court ruling are to be treated EQUAL!

Want a real life example?

You watch baseball? You know the Chicago Cubs? Ever hear of Ben Zobrist? Well, scenario 2 is playing out right there. Men have absolutely NO SHOT. Which is why...…..don't know if it is true, and I refuse to be a conspiracy theorist, but I have read that------------->

The male BIRTH CONTROL pill was developed around a decade ago in the UK. THE GOVERNMENT of the European Union put the kabosh on it.

Why?

Because from the reports, they knew that if MEN could take a pill that would prevent pregnancy, the birthrate would DROP in Europe, and Europe, even at that time, was barely keeping up with births to replacement. (in other words, they were barely replacing the people who died with new children)

And so you see gentlemen, if that report is true, not only are they telling you that you have no rights in a pregnancy if she decides to abort, you only have the right to PAY if she doesn't! And, that at least ONE government, refuses to allow you the tools, (like she has) to prevent her from getting pregnant in the 1st place, because...…..maybe...….you know, that no matter what the LAW says, your SCREWED!

So give you a choice too? Nah, nothing to see here folks, men; especially white ones, are neandrathals anyway!

It all comes down to one thing, government as an artificial construct to empower two DIFFERENT things through the force of government law to appear THE SAME. This is impose EQUITY under the guise of "empowered equality."

Man and woman are totally different, equal or unequal depending on an almost infinite scale of potential means for comparison: legal, biological, physical, social mental..... the beauty of the design is that like yin and yang, we fit together perfectly to create a whole, and it is in that perfect union that either of us attains true equality and perfection.

 

[McRocket]

]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."

Holy crap...what a flood of unadulterated anger at women along with a call for their status to be changed to that of virtual sub-humans.

You don't just hate women...you want their rights to be taken away. You clearly long for the day's when women had no power, no say and were virtual slaves.

Yup...you are one sick dude...your 'woman' (if you have one) must be one pathetic bitch with zero self-esteem to want to spend her life with a guy who CLEARLY sees women as sub-human.
(and don't bother with the 'I have a gorgeous, brilliant wife who is strong-willed and adores me' crap - no one with a properly working brain and over 10 will believe you.) More likely, you are old, divorced (or in a crap marriage) and VERY bitter that women don't submit like they did at one time.

And hello dufus? A 'girl' is NOT a female adult. It's a child - a woman UNDER 18 (in America).

'girl

NOUN

• 1A female child.'

girl | Definition of girl in English by Oxford Dictionaries

I KNEW there was something sick about you. And you just proved me 100% right. You DESPISE female equality with men. ABSOLUTELY HATE IT.

SHUT UP you stupid ignorant FRAUD. I don't hate women at all, quite the opposite, I'm merely speaking (as I stated at the onset) from a purely non-politically correct biological perspective as was the case for 99.998% of man's life on the planet. Sorry if that it too blunt for your delicate PC ears. Take the rest of your stupid ignorant half-baked 5th grade assumptions and shove them up your tight puckered useless ass.

Women being subservient to men is NOT biological. Shit are you ignorant. Humans could have evolved in a peaceful manner and could have shown respect for each sex equally.
There is NOTHING in biology that had ANYTHING to do with women being treated as virtual sub-human for thousands of years. It was purely because the men were dickheads and were generally physically stronger. That's it.

The fact that you claim a biological certainty when none exists was obviously just your way of trying to mask your STAGGERING misogynistic thoughts.

Additionally, the fact that you 'claim' to be SOOOO smart and SOOOO educated...yet you still refer to adult females as 'girls' (in the same sentence you referred to adult males as 'man', no less)...provides further evidence of this.


You sir are pathetic.

Have a wonderful day.