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

[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.

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

The law can be changed, much to your dismay.

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

Ok so using your own words,

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

See?

Those same words can and do apply equally to men.

When you have the law changed come let me know. Until then what you want will remain just that, what you want.

Not reality.

The Rolling Stones wrote a song just for you:

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Boy, you can tell this guy never had sex in his life...or he wouldn't say anything so foolish.

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.

Guy, here's the thing. The man doesn't have to deal with the physical results of pregnancy. They don't have their whole urinary system messed up by passing something that weighs 7 pounds out their pee-pee.

If men got pregnant, they'd be DEMANDING abortions!

Here's the reality. Women will get abortions no matter what the law is. They did before Roe, they will after Trump stumbles us into a Roe Reversal.

70% of the population supports abortion rights, even in the reddest, red state. This is why Republicans before Trump had the good sense to appoint moderates to SCOTUS to keep Roe from being overturned.

 

[SandSquid]

Ok, so men should have the right to an abortion on any child they carry, and women the right for any child they carry?

I don't think a man should be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body. If you want to have that conversation before having sex, do so. But you don't get to control the womans body because you failed to.

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, so men should have the right to an abortion on any child they carry, and women the right for any child they carry?

I don't think a man should be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body. If you want to have that conversation before having sex, do so. But you don't get to control the womans body because you failed to.

The only conversation that Twinkie boy has had with a woman about sex is, "$100 for a half-and-half".

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[airplanemechanic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it, that's all.

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

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

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

 

[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.

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

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

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


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

 

[deanrd]

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.

Equal say isn’t enough for right wingers. Right wing men want total control over women. They protect the rights of the rapists over the rights of the victim.

Don’t deny it. You know it’s true. We see it in legislation they’re trying to pass all over the United States.

 

[deanrd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it, that's all.

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

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

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

What nasty and disgusting people right wingers have become. They see a rape victim as a woman who spread her legs. I couldn’t make this up. It’s too disgusting for my mind to invent.

 

[toobfreak]

and refuses to provide the post that I have asked for:

SIMPLE SOLUTION, ButtRocket: Since you think all the world dances on websites, provide us with the links showing that women put up with male domination and rule for 5 million years - ~150 years when they could have winged it on their own ANY TIME THEY CHOSE!

• Show us the civilizations started by and ruled by women!
• Show us the nations and territory fought for and held by women!
• Show us the women who went out fighting saber tooth cats and woolly mammoths!
• Show us the cities designed and built by women!

If what you say is true, you'll have no trouble showing us proof of any of that being done separate of men farther back than the very recent current era of modern PC equity!

But you can't. You won't. It's in the historical record. Everyone knows it. You'll whine and cry and deflect and blame instead like the broken little pussy we all know you to be. You aren't arguing to defend women; your whole point here is to try to argue against ME because I've whipped your pussy ass a hundred times.

Make that 101.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it, that's all.

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

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

 

[anynameyouwish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it, that's all.

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

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

 

[McRocket]

and refuses to provide the post that I have asked for:

SIMPLE SOLUTION, ButtRocket: Since you think all the world dances on websites, provide us with the links showing that women put up with male domination and rule for 5 million years - ~150 years when they could have winged it on their own ANY TIME THEY CHOSE!

• Show us the civilizations started by and ruled by women!
• Show us the nations and territory fought for and held by women!
• Show us the women who went out fighting saber tooth cats and woolly mammoths!
• Show us the cities designed and built by women!

If what you say is true, you'll have no trouble showing us proof of any of that being done separate of men farther back than the very recent current era of modern PC equity!

But you can't. You won't. It's in the historical record. Everyone knows it. You'll whine and cry and deflect and blame instead like the broken little pussy we all know you to be. You aren't arguing to defend women; your whole point here is to try to argue against ME because I've whipped your pussy ass a hundred times.

Make that 101.

Sorry, pal...it don't work that way.

YOU STARTED THE ENTIRE 'BIOLOGY' DISCUSSION. IT IS UP TO YOU TO BACK IT UP. NOT ME TO DISPROVE IT (plus, I asked you first - lol).

So, once again:

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

If you are saying 'it's in the historical record' and 'everyone knows it'...then it should be a piece of cake to factually prove using unbiased source(s).

So...


BTW - if you keep 'whipping my pussy'? How come it is you that is the one telling me to (paraphrased) 'get lost' over and over and over again. While I am not asking you to stop in the slightest?

 

[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?

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

Not a baby. If he thinks she should be forced to have his child, but she never tells him she had an abortion, he’ll never know or care that she killed his fetus. It will never affect him. He has not set up any way of monitoring whether she’s pregnant or not, proving he doesn’t care if she has an abortion or not. If he cared, he would keep it in his pants.

 

[toobfreak]

Sorry, pal...it don't work that way.

Nope. It will NEVER work that way because if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence to prove anything I said was wrong, you already would have.

Only a fool jackass like you would try to argue that while biology rules in the entire animal kingdom, it doesn't in the case of the biological organism.... MAN.

 

[deanrd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it, that's all.

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

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

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

Not a baby. If he thinks she should be forced to have his child, but she never tells him she had an abortion, he’ll never know or care that she killed his fetus. It will never affect him. He has not set up any way of monitoring whether she’s pregnant or not, proving he doesn’t care if she has an abortion or not. If he cared, he would keep it in his pants.

If he had sex without using protection, then he didn’t really care to begin with. You know that right? Admit it for the truth it is.

 

[McRocket]

Sorry, pal...it don't work that way.

Nope. It will NEVER work that way because if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence to prove anything I said was wrong, you already would have.

Only a fool jackass like you would try to argue that while biology rules in the entire animal kingdom, it doesn't in the case of the biological organism.... MAN.

You don't say 'the sky is falling' and when people say 'prove it'; you say, 'no, you prove it isn't'. That's asinine. You started the ENTIRE theory in this thread pal...it is up to you to back it up. Duh.

You can't do it (and you know it) so you are desperately trying to deflect.


So, once again:

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

 

[NotYourBody]

\ Why is the choice to arbitrarily exterminate the growing life in the womb exclusively hers?

Why? Because it exists inside her womb and you have no way of knowing it is in there. That's one reason.

 

[toobfreak]

You can't do it (and you know it) so you are desperately trying to deflect

What deflect, McButtBlaster? You want me to produce an entire library of thousands of years of history and documentation here just for YOU?

So you can just dismiss it all as "not credible" or "unbiased?" (your conditions inserted so you'll dismiss ANY proof)

YOU are the one saying I'm wrong.

So prove it.

If you can't prove your case, then STFU. You have no case.

If you want proof of my case, go to college and get an education.

 

[sartre play]

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