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

[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.

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.

Like when Genghis Khan and his hordes raped their way across entire continents. It was ying and yang. Gorgeous.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Wow. Such an intelligent response.

If "white men are neanderthals" is your basis for not giving them an equal say, you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.

 

[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.

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

I did NOT mis-state anything. I seen both scenarios play out multiple times in more than a few states with people I was acquainted with, and the conclusions I posted happened EACH, and EVERY time, less 1...……...and than man had to spend thousands more AFTER the divorce to get his kids back, and guess what-------->the women, after he got his kids back, NEVER had to pay 1 nickel of support.

Fair? FAIR! I think not! Give men the pill, and watch what happens!

 

[Moonglow]

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.

You mean being the atm for the child is the father's job..The sperm is free but after that....End of story...

 

[imawhosure]

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

Wow. Such an intelligent response.

If "white men are neanderthals" is your basis for not giving them an equal say, you are, for lack of a better word, stupid.

You misinterpreted. I think they SHOULD have the pill. I was being sarcastic, suggesting that again, if you are white, you are a neandrathal, so you should not have the ability to get the male pill, which again, if it is available and denying us it's release, government telling us WHAT TO DO, because they think they know better!

 

[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.

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.

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

I did NOT mis-state anything. I seen both scenarios play out multiple times in more than a few states with people I was acquainted with, and the conclusions I posted happened EACH, and EVERY time, less 1...……...and than man had to spend thousands more AFTER the divorce to get his kids back, and guess what-------->the women, after he got his kids back, NEVER had to pay 1 nickel of support.

Fair? FAIR! I think not! Give men the pill, and watch what happens!

Indeed..watch what happens: BTW..found nothing about Britain banning anything

https://www.birthcontrol.com/options/male-birth-control-shot/

"What this means is that there needs to be more options for birth control and having a breakthrough for male birth control could be critical to answering this issue.
There has been a recent breakthrough in a new study which was conducted by Mario Philip Reyes Festin, MD, of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
In the small studies they have done, they found injectable contraceptives in men with normal sperm counts have helped control unwanted pregnancies.
The study was conducted on males between 18 and 45 years old with a steady partner of over a year between the ages of 18 and 38.
In order to suppress the males sperm count, the men were given 200 milligrams of progestogen (norethisterone enanthate) and also 1000 milligrams of an androgen called testosterone undecanoate (TU).

The 2 injects were given to the men every 8 weeks for 26 weeks and it helped decrease sperm count.
After the study was completed, it was noted that 96% of the males who continued with the male birth control shot were able to successfully prevent pregnancy.

In the second round of study, only 4 pregnancies were reported of the whole study.
However, in the end, the study was stopped because men were complaining about the side effects
As well, in the end of it, the study was called off because of the side effects of the shot. Many men were complaining about the side effects that women experience on a regular basis when they have their period."

As for an actual pill:

Birth control pill for men shows promise in early study

 

[imawhosure]

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 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

I did NOT mis-state anything. I seen both scenarios play out multiple times in more than a few states with people I was acquainted with, and the conclusions I posted happened EACH, and EVERY time, less 1...……...and than man had to spend thousands more AFTER the divorce to get his kids back, and guess what-------->the women, after he got his kids back, NEVER had to pay 1 nickel of support.

Fair? FAIR! I think not! Give men the pill, and watch what happens!

Indeed..watch what happens: BTW..found nothing about Britain banning anything

https://www.birthcontrol.com/options/male-birth-control-shot/

"What this means is that there needs to be more options for birth control and having a breakthrough for male birth control could be critical to answering this issue.
There has been a recent breakthrough in a new study which was conducted by Mario Philip Reyes Festin, MD, of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
In the small studies they have done, they found injectable contraceptives in men with normal sperm counts have helped control unwanted pregnancies.
The study was conducted on males between 18 and 45 years old with a steady partner of over a year between the ages of 18 and 38.
In order to suppress the males sperm count, the men were given 200 milligrams of progestogen (norethisterone enanthate) and also 1000 milligrams of an androgen called testosterone undecanoate (TU).

The 2 injects were given to the men every 8 weeks for 26 weeks and it helped decrease sperm count.
After the study was completed, it was noted that 96% of the males who continued with the male birth control shot were able to successfully prevent pregnancy.

In the second round of study, only 4 pregnancies were reported of the whole study.
However, in the end, the study was stopped because men were complaining about the side effects
As well, in the end of it, the study was called off because of the side effects of the shot. Many men were complaining about the side effects that women experience on a regular basis when they have their period."

As for an actual pill:

Birth control pill for men shows promise in early study

Thanks for the update. This weekend, I will search to see if I can find the reports I mentioned.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

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.

Like when Genghis Khan and his hordes raped their way across entire continents. It was ying and yang. Gorgeous.

Ah,, those were the days..

 

[toobfreak]

Women being subservient to men is NOT biological.

Go suck a horse's ass you lobotomized moron. It can't be anything BUT biological. Open up a fucking history book for Christ's sake and READ for a change! For FIVE MILLION YEARS from the time hominids branched off to about 100 years ago, women were TOTALLY DEPENDENT on men for survival for a series of reasons:

1. The were bigger and stronger and built shelter to live.
2. They hunted food.
3. They fought wars over property and territory.
4. They wrote the laws.

It wasn't until civilization reached the Renaissance of enlightenment that things began to change. Women have slowly been recognized with the rights to vote, to work for themselves, and many other things granting them full autonomy. Even in our grandparents or great-grand-parent's time, the husband was lord of his home and the wife subservient. She stayed home, cooked, cleaned, raised family, children did not speak at the dinner table-- -- -- life was hard. It was even written into the marriage vows: To Love, Honor and Obey.

You ought to learn the difference between someone actually promoting such stuff and someone merely reporting it as anthropomorphic fact. But then, when have facts ever concerned you? You are just part of the 90% here only concerned with partisan propaganda and rancor.

 

[SmokeALib]

]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.

Well, to be fair - in the Democratic party - women are women, and so are the men.

 

[McRocket]

Women being subservient to men is NOT biological.

Go suck a horse's ass you lobotomized moron. It can't be anything BUT biological. Open up a fucking history book for Christ's sake and READ for a change! For FIVE MILLION YEARS from the time hominids branched off to about 100 years ago, women were TOTALLY DEPENDENT on men for survival for a series of reasons:

1. The were bigger and stronger and built shelter to live.
2. They hunted food.
3. They fought wars over property and territory.
4. They wrote the laws.

It wasn't until civilization reached the Renaissance of enlightenment that things began to change. Women have slowly been recognized with the rights to vote, to work for themselves, and many other things granting them full autonomy. Even in our grandparents or great-grand-parent's time, the husband was lord of his home and the wife subservient. She stayed home, cooked, cleaned, raised family, children did not speak at the dinner table-- -- -- life was hard. It was even written into the marriage vows: To Love, Honor and Obey.

You ought to learn the difference between someone actually promoting such stuff and someone merely reporting it as anthropomorphic fact. But then, when have facts ever concerned you? You are just part of the 90% here only concerned with partisan propaganda and rancor.

LOL...I assume you think you are helping your case...but you are only digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Let's take your 'list':

1. The were bigger and stronger and built shelter to live.
2. They hunted food.
3. They fought wars over property and territory.
4. They wrote the laws.

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.

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 - you cannot.

The ONLY reason women were treated as sub-human was because men wanted to and were stronger (to enforce said treatment). They could have said - 'all men and women are equal under law. Both sexes can do anything they wish - hunt, fish, farm, raise children, cook, whatever.' There was NOTHING in their biological makeup that said otherwise (other then negative, psychological traits).

Your entire argument is nonsense and rabidly sexist.


BTW - this 'lobotomized moron' is making a fool out of you on this...well, actually...you are doing that all by yourself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Yeah.

Without we men "contributing" by doing what we love and think about doing all day long, there would be no choice.

You're welcome, women.



.

 

[WheelieAddict]

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.

Someone has trouble getting laid.

 

[McRocket]

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.

Someone has trouble getting laid.

That was my first thought as well.

 

[WheelieAddict]

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.

Someone has trouble getting laid.

That was my first thought as well.

Its damn obvious lol

 

[McRocket]

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.

Someone has trouble getting laid.

That was my first thought as well.

Its damn obvious lol

Well, that or his girlfriend had an abortion and he desperately wanted the child to live.

But this guy doesn't strike me as that selfless...not sure why...LOL.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Fine I'm all for removing that zygote from the woman for that man to parent.

He can have all the say about that zygote once it's removed from the woman's body.

Problem solved.

 

[McRocket]

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.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

That's the way you want things to be. That's not how things actually are.

I personally want all children to know their dad and have the love of their dad. Unfortunately it's most common for countless children to not know their dad.

Their dad had sex, made a life then walked away without even looking back to see what they have caused. There are countless men who even deny their own flesh and blood so a DNA test is required.

The reality is that the majority of men who create an unplanned pregnancy doesn't want that child.

The reality is that divorced men walk away from their own children.

The number of men who actually want their children are small compared to the ones who don't.

So personally I want that to stop but I'm not going to get what I want either.

Just like you.