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

[Cecilie1200]

No, pregnancy is a physical condition which is unique in human experience, and not really comparable to anything else. Ill health would be where something in your body has gone wrong, whether it be a system malfunctioning or an invasion by foreign bodies. Pregnancy isn't a malfunction; it's something that the female body is designed to do. However, unlike anything else the body is designed to do, it carries an increased risk factor to it. As such, it is in and of itself a healthcare issue. It needs specialized healthcare in and of itself.

Prior to modern medicine...women frequently died in childbirth..so much so that a man would commonly go through several wives--always of child-bearing years..thus always young--teen-aged usually..as the man aged.
The advent of modern medicine changed that..in fact, it helped invert the statistics..as women now live longer than men.

So yeah--it is a healthcare issue!

You are correct. It can go very wrong quickly and easily . . . and even if it all goes perfectly, there is still an increased need for healthcare.

I had three textbook pregnancies and deliveries, and I still required regular check-ups and monitoring and pre-natal vitamin prescriptions.

You mean..instead of running your household..putting dinner on the table..washing the clothes by hand..servicing your husband at his beck and call and eating whatever? Only to have some 'midwife' with dirt encrusted hands put those hands inside of you? Hard to believe, huh? That the 'natural' way somehow wasn't the best?

Only to die and have a husband look to the sky..say it was God's will...and go shopping for the next 13 year old?

Oh, I still ran my household and put dinner on the table. Didn't wash the clothes by hand, but for the first two, hauling the laundry to the laundromat was a bitch-and-a-half. Never considered having sexual relations with my husband to be a chore and burden, but if that's your perception, that's between you and your therapist.

I'm thinking you have some serious issues with human history and with relations between the sexes. Might want to look to that.

Even in the bad old days, pregnant women still required more medical attention than they would have received had they not been pregnant . . . whatever level of medical attention that happened to be.

LOL..let's just say women had a hard life..prior to the advent of modern medicine..and leave it at that. In the 'bad old days' the concept of medical attention for a pregnant woman..unless she was of high status or her husband was wealthy and allowed it..were slim to none.

I have no issues with history of any type..history simply is--now interpretations of said history abound--most have an agenda. Me...I have 3 daughters and 7 grand-daughters..I just want a world in which they can choose whatever they think is best...without archaic laws interfering. That's my agenda. I note that you did not address the second half of my post---shall I take that as agreement?

I'll admit to being inexperienced with women, I guess..I was married for 36 years--and although my wife passed on..I consider myself married still--if you consider that an 'issue', guilty as charged.

True freedom of choice...is the goal. That includes the freedom NOT to have an abortion--some might laugh..unless they've studied recent in China, Russia....or History again.

Better idea: let's just say EVERYONE had a hard life. Men weren't just lounging around, eating grapes and issuing orders while their wives did all the work. A man could outlive a few wives due to childbirth deaths, but a woman could equally outlive some husbands due to work accidents or violence. Do you know how common it was for men to die from cuts and injuries that we would consider low-priority in the urgent care today? Infection was a bitch.

Also, young wives and older husbands wasn't quite the pervy thing you seem to think it was back then. In a world where life expectancy was shockingly low from our standpoint today, it was necessary to take advantage of child-bearing years as much as possible. You sure as hell weren't going to be able to visit a fertility doctor to help you give birth after 35 when your career was done. By contrast, an older husband was to the woman's benefit as much as anyone's, since he would be more likely to be financially established and able to provide for her.

As it happens, my grandmother was 12 when she got married, and my grandfather was 24. She eventually gave birth to something like 10 kids, and outlived both him AND her second husband.

If I agree with you, I'll say so. If I didn't say so, don't assume. This is what I do in between flurries of work at my job. It could just be that I needed to end my post and go do something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For the most part..you are correct..However...that was then..and this is now--

I know I'm right. And that has been my point all along: THAT WAS THEN-- -- -- -- about 99.998% of mankind's time on this planet. And THIS IS NOW, over the past 150 years roughly, we have slowly transitioned into a socially modern form where laws have elevated women to an equal status with men over biology, more or less, leveling the playing field as it were.

Yes, I got your point..I would point out that it is not just laws that have leveled the playing field..but technology, as well..in fact..one of the things that contributes to the true equality of the sexes is the 2nd amendment..A woman with a gun..and the training and willingness to use it...can cancel out a man's superior strength in a hurry..along with cancelling his ticket..if needed.But for sure, contraception and legal abortion have made women the true mistresses of their bodies--like it or not.

Mind you, my agreement with your post is only about the 2nd Amendment part. As for contraception and abortion "making women true mistresses of their bodies", they already were long before in their power to just say "NO".

Huh!! Do you really think that women had the power to just say 'no'?? Hell...the concept of marital rape was not even recognized 100 years ago. 200 years ago...a high status man could rape with impunity..and that was that. Just say No was a horselaugh--the only bar to rape was a Father or Brothers revenge for the mistreatment of their property..and that was what women were..in many cultures..chattel..with no more rights than a horse.

100 years ago..if a women was raped and became pregnant..who was forced to bear that child..in almost all cases. Now she has a choice..thus she is the true mistress of her body. She can be on the pill...and choose when she become pregnant..if she even wished to.

But hey..I guess these are more of my 'issues on relations between the sexes' in history, right?

I could be wrong..but somewhere lurking in your argument..is an anti-abortion mindset. If I'm wrong..do forgive my assumptions.

Not that I have issues with that..as long as it does not become the law of the land. I abhor abortion--but I'm 100% behind a woman's right to choose.

I think that women have had the ability to say no for a long time, and you might want to drag yourself a little further forward than 100 years ago.

I also think you might want to not ASSume that just because the law wouldn't prosecute marital rape, that means every other man out there was doing it.

As a woman, I have to tell you that I'm really offended by this "women have always been nothing but victims, and killing babies is true freedom" schtick you've got going here. It's really demeaning and derivative to women, although I believe that you don't intend it that way.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Prior to modern medicine...women frequently died in childbirth..so much so that a man would commonly go through several wives--always of child-bearing years..thus always young--teen-aged usually..as the man aged.
The advent of modern medicine changed that..in fact, it helped invert the statistics..as women now live longer than men.

So yeah--it is a healthcare issue!

You are correct. It can go very wrong quickly and easily . . . and even if it all goes perfectly, there is still an increased need for healthcare.

I had three textbook pregnancies and deliveries, and I still required regular check-ups and monitoring and pre-natal vitamin prescriptions.

You mean..instead of running your household..putting dinner on the table..washing the clothes by hand..servicing your husband at his beck and call and eating whatever? Only to have some 'midwife' with dirt encrusted hands put those hands inside of you? Hard to believe, huh? That the 'natural' way somehow wasn't the best?

Only to die and have a husband look to the sky..say it was God's will...and go shopping for the next 13 year old?

Oh, I still ran my household and put dinner on the table. Didn't wash the clothes by hand, but for the first two, hauling the laundry to the laundromat was a bitch-and-a-half. Never considered having sexual relations with my husband to be a chore and burden, but if that's your perception, that's between you and your therapist.

I'm thinking you have some serious issues with human history and with relations between the sexes. Might want to look to that.

Even in the bad old days, pregnant women still required more medical attention than they would have received had they not been pregnant . . . whatever level of medical attention that happened to be.

LOL..let's just say women had a hard life..prior to the advent of modern medicine..and leave it at that. In the 'bad old days' the concept of medical attention for a pregnant woman..unless she was of high status or her husband was wealthy and allowed it..were slim to none.

I have no issues with history of any type..history simply is--now interpretations of said history abound--most have an agenda. Me...I have 3 daughters and 7 grand-daughters..I just want a world in which they can choose whatever they think is best...without archaic laws interfering. That's my agenda. I note that you did not address the second half of my post---shall I take that as agreement?

I'll admit to being inexperienced with women, I guess..I was married for 36 years--and although my wife passed on..I consider myself married still--if you consider that an 'issue', guilty as charged.

True freedom of choice...is the goal. That includes the freedom NOT to have an abortion--some might laugh..unless they've studied recent in China, Russia....or History again.

Better idea: let's just say EVERYONE had a hard life. Men weren't just lounging around, eating grapes and issuing orders while their wives did all the work. A man could outlive a few wives due to childbirth deaths, but a woman could equally outlive some husbands due to work accidents or violence. Do you know how common it was for men to die from cuts and injuries that we would consider low-priority in the urgent care today? Infection was a bitch.

Also, young wives and older husbands wasn't quite the pervy thing you seem to think it was back then. In a world where life expectancy was shockingly low from our standpoint today, it was necessary to take advantage of child-bearing years as much as possible. You sure as hell weren't going to be able to visit a fertility doctor to help you give birth after 35 when your career was done. By contrast, an older husband was to the woman's benefit as much as anyone's, since he would be more likely to be financially established and able to provide for her.

As it happens, my grandmother was 12 when she got married, and my grandfather was 24. She eventually gave birth to something like 10 kids, and outlived both him AND her second husband.

If I agree with you, I'll say so. If I didn't say so, don't assume. This is what I do in between flurries of work at my job. It could just be that I needed to end my post and go do something.

Fair enough....My history..family wise..looks about the same. Not sure where you got the 'pervy' part...as i said..history just is..I do not judge historical events in the moral or ethical framework of 2019.

What you said was completely correct. It is in our interpretations that we disagree..and that is how it should be. I enjoyed this polite lil interlude..take care and don't work too hard.

 

[toobfreak]

For the most part..you are correct..However...that was then..and this is now--

I know I'm right. And that has been my point all along: THAT WAS THEN-- -- -- -- about 99.998% of mankind's time on this planet. And THIS IS NOW, over the past 150 years roughly, we have slowly transitioned into a socially modern form where laws have elevated women to an equal status with men over biology, more or less, leveling the playing field as it were.

Yes, I got your point..I would point out that it is not just laws that have leveled the playing field..but technology, as well..in fact..one of the things that contributes to the true equality of the sexes is the 2nd amendment..A woman with a gun..and the training and willingness to use it...can cancel out a man's superior strength in a hurry..along with cancelling his ticket..if needed.But for sure, contraception and legal abortion have made women the true mistresses of their bodies--like it or not.

Mind you, my agreement with your post is only about the 2nd Amendment part. As for contraception and abortion "making women true mistresses of their bodies", they already were long before in their power to just say "NO".

Huh!! Do you really think that women had the power to just say 'no'?? Hell...the concept of marital rape was not even recognized 100 years ago. 200 years ago...a high status man could rape with impunity..and that was that.

Rape is still alive and well I understand in Muslim countries where women are still property and treated like cattle. I think that if you are raped and get pregnant by another man, YOU are blamed, you are a disgrace to the family and lucky if you are not stoned to death! Amazing.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

For the most part..you are correct..However...that was then..and this is now--

I know I'm right. And that has been my point all along: THAT WAS THEN-- -- -- -- about 99.998% of mankind's time on this planet. And THIS IS NOW, over the past 150 years roughly, we have slowly transitioned into a socially modern form where laws have elevated women to an equal status with men over biology, more or less, leveling the playing field as it were.

Yes, I got your point..I would point out that it is not just laws that have leveled the playing field..but technology, as well..in fact..one of the things that contributes to the true equality of the sexes is the 2nd amendment..A woman with a gun..and the training and willingness to use it...can cancel out a man's superior strength in a hurry..along with cancelling his ticket..if needed.But for sure, contraception and legal abortion have made women the true mistresses of their bodies--like it or not.

Mind you, my agreement with your post is only about the 2nd Amendment part. As for contraception and abortion "making women true mistresses of their bodies", they already were long before in their power to just say "NO".

Huh!! Do you really think that women had the power to just say 'no'?? Hell...the concept of marital rape was not even recognized 100 years ago. 200 years ago...a high status man could rape with impunity..and that was that. Just say No was a horselaugh--the only bar to rape was a Father or Brothers revenge for the mistreatment of their property..and that was what women were..in many cultures..chattel..with no more rights than a horse.

100 years ago..if a women was raped and became pregnant..who was forced to bear that child..in almost all cases. Now she has a choice..thus she is the true mistress of her body. She can be on the pill...and choose when she become pregnant..if she even wished to.

But hey..I guess these are more of my 'issues on relations between the sexes' in history, right?

I could be wrong..but somewhere lurking in your argument..is an anti-abortion mindset. If I'm wrong..do forgive my assumptions.

Not that I have issues with that..as long as it does not become the law of the land. I abhor abortion--but I'm 100% behind a woman's right to choose.

I think that women have had the ability to say no for a long time, and you might want to drag yourself a little further forward than 100 years ago.

I also think you might want to not ASSume that just because the law wouldn't prosecute marital rape, that means every other man out there was doing it.

As a woman, I have to tell you that I'm really offended by this "women have always been nothing but victims, and killing babies is true freedom" schtick you've got going here. It's really demeaning and derivative to women, although I believe that you don't intend it that way.

You might not want to ASSume that that was my ASSumption...as I did not say that at all. Just said that it was not against the law. Period.

"As a woman, I have to tell you that I'm really offended by this "women have always been nothing but victims, and killing babies is true freedom" schtick you've got going here".
I've not said nor implied anything of the kind..I do believe that the above is all in your head..especially the "Killing babies is true freedom' schtick.
The Right to choose..is true freedom. It is the only true freedom. That is what I'm saying..any spin you read into that is yours..own it.

History is what it is..don't like..sorry.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

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

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

Like I said, you don't really believe what you say about "Men have no say in it". That's a lie to cover up what you really believe: People who disagree with you should have no say in it.

Find another lie to flatter yourself with.

A guy agreeing that it is a woman’s choice has no need to STFU. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

You're a hypocrite. Why is THAT so hard for YOU to grasp?

The next time you want to blather about "Men should sit down and STFU", be honest for the first time in your miserable little existence and say what you REALLY mean: "Everyone who disagrees with me should sit down and STFU, because I really just care about silencing the opposition."

Oh, I’m definitely a hypocrite on many things, but this isn’t one of them. A guy trying to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body can STFU regardless of political affiliation. Guys that don’t try to dictate what women can do with their bodies don’t have to STFU. Not bitchy enough for you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

Read the very first sentence in my OP again.

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

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

Simply put.

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

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

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

The human race would die. Quickly.

Could be why Nature made men such horndogs, generally speaking.

I find humor in the most benign things... and the way you phrased that statement was hilarious.

"horndogs"

I'll add that to my vocabulary. Lol.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If they agree with me on a woman's right to make their own healthcare choices regarding their own bodies, it still doesn't matter.

"If they agree with me on a woman's right to make their own healthcare choices"

Don't need Google Translate for this one.

"If they agree with me on a woman's right to have an abortion when she so chooses"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cecilie1200

So, am I to gather that men lose all say in the matter when "they release their sperm and genetic material into the possession of the woman"?

The science tells me that it has more to do with contribution than possession. When you contribute your half of the child's genetic material, I am convinced you have just as much of a say so on the fate of the child.

Hm... what I thought was a straightforward issue, has just become more complex.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are correct. It can go very wrong quickly and easily . . . and even if it all goes perfectly, there is still an increased need for healthcare.

I had three textbook pregnancies and deliveries, and I still required regular check-ups and monitoring and pre-natal vitamin prescriptions.

You mean..instead of running your household..putting dinner on the table..washing the clothes by hand..servicing your husband at his beck and call and eating whatever? Only to have some 'midwife' with dirt encrusted hands put those hands inside of you? Hard to believe, huh? That the 'natural' way somehow wasn't the best?

Only to die and have a husband look to the sky..say it was God's will...and go shopping for the next 13 year old?

Oh, I still ran my household and put dinner on the table. Didn't wash the clothes by hand, but for the first two, hauling the laundry to the laundromat was a bitch-and-a-half. Never considered having sexual relations with my husband to be a chore and burden, but if that's your perception, that's between you and your therapist.

I'm thinking you have some serious issues with human history and with relations between the sexes. Might want to look to that.

Even in the bad old days, pregnant women still required more medical attention than they would have received had they not been pregnant . . . whatever level of medical attention that happened to be.

LOL..let's just say women had a hard life..prior to the advent of modern medicine..and leave it at that. In the 'bad old days' the concept of medical attention for a pregnant woman..unless she was of high status or her husband was wealthy and allowed it..were slim to none.

I have no issues with history of any type..history simply is--now interpretations of said history abound--most have an agenda. Me...I have 3 daughters and 7 grand-daughters..I just want a world in which they can choose whatever they think is best...without archaic laws interfering. That's my agenda. I note that you did not address the second half of my post---shall I take that as agreement?

I'll admit to being inexperienced with women, I guess..I was married for 36 years--and although my wife passed on..I consider myself married still--if you consider that an 'issue', guilty as charged.

True freedom of choice...is the goal. That includes the freedom NOT to have an abortion--some might laugh..unless they've studied recent in China, Russia....or History again.

Better idea: let's just say EVERYONE had a hard life. Men weren't just lounging around, eating grapes and issuing orders while their wives did all the work. A man could outlive a few wives due to childbirth deaths, but a woman could equally outlive some husbands due to work accidents or violence. Do you know how common it was for men to die from cuts and injuries that we would consider low-priority in the urgent care today? Infection was a bitch.

Also, young wives and older husbands wasn't quite the pervy thing you seem to think it was back then. In a world where life expectancy was shockingly low from our standpoint today, it was necessary to take advantage of child-bearing years as much as possible. You sure as hell weren't going to be able to visit a fertility doctor to help you give birth after 35 when your career was done. By contrast, an older husband was to the woman's benefit as much as anyone's, since he would be more likely to be financially established and able to provide for her.

As it happens, my grandmother was 12 when she got married, and my grandfather was 24. She eventually gave birth to something like 10 kids, and outlived both him AND her second husband.

If I agree with you, I'll say so. If I didn't say so, don't assume. This is what I do in between flurries of work at my job. It could just be that I needed to end my post and go do something.

Fair enough....My history..family wise..looks about the same. Not sure where you got the 'pervy' part...as i said..history just is..I do not judge historical events in the moral or ethical framework of 2019.

What you said was completely correct. It is in our interpretations that we disagree..and that is how it should be. I enjoyed this polite lil interlude..take care and don't work too hard.

I never work too hard. First, I love my job; and second, my primary genius in my job is my ability to look at the way things are being done and figure out a faster, more efficient, easier way to do it. I like to tell the story of how the company hired three people originally to do what I do all by myself now, because I streamlined my co-workers right out of their jobs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know I'm right. And that has been my point all along: THAT WAS THEN-- -- -- -- about 99.998% of mankind's time on this planet. And THIS IS NOW, over the past 150 years roughly, we have slowly transitioned into a socially modern form where laws have elevated women to an equal status with men over biology, more or less, leveling the playing field as it were.

Yes, I got your point..I would point out that it is not just laws that have leveled the playing field..but technology, as well..in fact..one of the things that contributes to the true equality of the sexes is the 2nd amendment..A woman with a gun..and the training and willingness to use it...can cancel out a man's superior strength in a hurry..along with cancelling his ticket..if needed.But for sure, contraception and legal abortion have made women the true mistresses of their bodies--like it or not.

Mind you, my agreement with your post is only about the 2nd Amendment part. As for contraception and abortion "making women true mistresses of their bodies", they already were long before in their power to just say "NO".

Huh!! Do you really think that women had the power to just say 'no'?? Hell...the concept of marital rape was not even recognized 100 years ago. 200 years ago...a high status man could rape with impunity..and that was that. Just say No was a horselaugh--the only bar to rape was a Father or Brothers revenge for the mistreatment of their property..and that was what women were..in many cultures..chattel..with no more rights than a horse.

100 years ago..if a women was raped and became pregnant..who was forced to bear that child..in almost all cases. Now she has a choice..thus she is the true mistress of her body. She can be on the pill...and choose when she become pregnant..if she even wished to.

But hey..I guess these are more of my 'issues on relations between the sexes' in history, right?

I could be wrong..but somewhere lurking in your argument..is an anti-abortion mindset. If I'm wrong..do forgive my assumptions.

Not that I have issues with that..as long as it does not become the law of the land. I abhor abortion--but I'm 100% behind a woman's right to choose.

I think that women have had the ability to say no for a long time, and you might want to drag yourself a little further forward than 100 years ago.

I also think you might want to not ASSume that just because the law wouldn't prosecute marital rape, that means every other man out there was doing it.

As a woman, I have to tell you that I'm really offended by this "women have always been nothing but victims, and killing babies is true freedom" schtick you've got going here. It's really demeaning and derivative to women, although I believe that you don't intend it that way.

You might not want to ASSume that that was my ASSumption...as I did not say that at all. Just said that it was not against the law. Period.

"As a woman, I have to tell you that I'm really offended by this "women have always been nothing but victims, and killing babies is true freedom" schtick you've got going here".
I've not said nor implied anything of the kind..I do believe that the above is all in your head..especially the "Killing babies is true freedom' schtick.
The Right to choose..is true freedom. It is the only true freedom. That is what I'm saying..any spin you read into that is yours..own it.

History is what it is..don't like..sorry.

Sorry, however much you want to disguise this from yourself via euphemisms, the "right to choose" is, in bluntly honest terms, the "right" to choose to kill someone or not. Only sociopaths equate freedom with choosing to kill people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

Like I said, you don't really believe what you say about "Men have no say in it". That's a lie to cover up what you really believe: People who disagree with you should have no say in it.

Find another lie to flatter yourself with.

A guy agreeing that it is a woman’s choice has no need to STFU. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

You're a hypocrite. Why is THAT so hard for YOU to grasp?

The next time you want to blather about "Men should sit down and STFU", be honest for the first time in your miserable little existence and say what you REALLY mean: "Everyone who disagrees with me should sit down and STFU, because I really just care about silencing the opposition."

Oh, I’m definitely a hypocrite on many things, but this isn’t one of them. A guy trying to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body can STFU regardless of political affiliation. Guys that don’t try to dictate what women can do with their bodies don’t have to STFU. Not bitchy enough for you?

Oh, this is hypocritical, all right, because you're saying it's because he's a man, but you don't apply it to all men. It's also lying, because what you REALLY mean is that anyone who disagrees with you, man or woman, should shut up; it's not about the sex of the person at all. It's about the fact that you think your opinion is the only one that should be allowed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie1200

So, am I to gather that men lose all say in the matter when "they release their sperm and genetic material into the possession of the woman"?

The science tells me that it has more to do with contribution than possession. When you contribute your half of the child's genetic material, I am convinced you have just as much of a say so on the fate of the child.

Hm... what I thought was a straightforward issue, has just become more complex.

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

You are switching back and forth between science and law here. Either you want to talk about the science saying that half the genetic material came from you, or you want to talk about whether or not the law says that you should therefore retain control over what happens to that genetic material. Pick one. Science ALSO tells you that you contributed that genetic material by essentially handing it to another person. And I'm not aware, off the top of my head, of any place in the law which says that you retain control over an object after giving it to someone else. Like I said before, possession is nine points of the law. She has possession; you don't.

Don't make the mistake that leftists do of thinking that the law can simply wave a magic wand and make Nature conform to human ideas of what's "fair" or "equitable" or "morally right". Nature doesn't give a damn, and will be what it is to serve it's purposes, human feelings on the subject be damned. You can pass all the laws you like, and it won't change the fact that she's got the kid inside her body. Your control over your genetic material ends when it leaves your possession, as a purely practical fact.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

I see... so the man is practically irrelevant past a certain point. It is a position I don't like, but one that makes the most sense. Logic wins again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cecilie1200

So, am I to gather that men lose all say in the matter when "they release their sperm and genetic material into the possession of the woman"?

The science tells me that it has more to do with contribution than possession. When you contribute your half of the child's genetic material, I am convinced you have just as much of a say so on the fate of the child.

Hm... what I thought was a straightforward issue, has just become more complex.

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

You are switching back and forth between science and law here. Either you want to talk about the science saying that half the genetic material came from you, or you want to talk about whether or not the law says that you should therefore retain control over what happens to that genetic material. Pick one. Science ALSO tells you that you contributed that genetic material by essentially handing it to another person. And I'm not aware, off the top of my head, of any place in the law which says that you retain control over an object after giving it to someone else. Like I said before, possession is nine points of the law. She has possession; you don't.

Don't make the mistake that leftists do of thinking that the law can simply wave a magic wand and make Nature conform to human ideas of what's "fair" or "equitable" or "morally right". Nature doesn't give a damn, and will be what it is to serve it's purposes, human feelings on the subject be damned. You can pass all the laws you like, and it won't change the fact that she's got the kid inside her body. Your control over your genetic material ends when it leaves your possession, as a purely practical fact.

What would you say to the leftists here who may claim you are making their case for them? If the fetus is her possession, she can choose to abort it. If possession is "nine points of the law" then the choice---between giving birth and having an abortion--is ultimately hers to make.

This thread is making me think more than it should. Thinking is painful. :O

 

[Cecilie1200]

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

I see... so the man is practically irrelevant past a certain point. It is a position I don't like, but one that makes the most sense. Logic wins again.

No, not irrelevant at all. Fathers are immensely important in a child's life. It's more a matter of "If you choose badly in distributing your genetic material, you are choosing to relegate yourself to a secondary and vulnerable position."

To put it another way, your child needs you very badly, and needs very badly for you to make good choices about his life. The first one he needs you to make well is the choice of his mother.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

The courts have consistently held that the husband/father has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will, or to otherwise dictate to her concerning matters of her pregnancy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

I see... so the man is practically irrelevant past a certain point. It is a position I don't like, but one that makes the most sense. Logic wins again.

No, not irrelevant at all. Fathers are immensely important in a child's life. It's more a matter of "If you choose badly in distributing your genetic material, you are choosing to relegate yourself to a secondary and vulnerable position."

To put it another way, your child needs you very badly, and needs very badly for you to make good choices about his life. The first one he needs you to make well is the choice of his mother.

That is... one hell of a response. And something I can live with.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Like I said, you don't really believe what you say about "Men have no say in it". That's a lie to cover up what you really believe: People who disagree with you should have no say in it.

Find another lie to flatter yourself with.

A guy agreeing that it is a woman’s choice has no need to STFU. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

You're a hypocrite. Why is THAT so hard for YOU to grasp?

The next time you want to blather about "Men should sit down and STFU", be honest for the first time in your miserable little existence and say what you REALLY mean: "Everyone who disagrees with me should sit down and STFU, because I really just care about silencing the opposition."

Oh, I’m definitely a hypocrite on many things, but this isn’t one of them. A guy trying to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body can STFU regardless of political affiliation. Guys that don’t try to dictate what women can do with their bodies don’t have to STFU. Not bitchy enough for you?

Oh, this is hypocritical, all right, because you're saying it's because he's a man, but you don't apply it to all men. It's also lying, because what you REALLY mean is that anyone who disagrees with you, man or woman, should shut up; it's not about the sex of the person at all. It's about the fact that you think your opinion is the only one that should be allowed.

Of course I apply it to all men as I have stated. All men that think they can tell a woman what do do with her body can STFU. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with their political beliefs. Stop ascribing your narrow worldview to everyone else. Until a man has a womb, it isn’t his choice to make.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie1200

So, am I to gather that men lose all say in the matter when "they release their sperm and genetic material into the possession of the woman"?

The science tells me that it has more to do with contribution than possession. When you contribute your half of the child's genetic material, I am convinced you have just as much of a say so on the fate of the child.

Hm... what I thought was a straightforward issue, has just become more complex.

As a practical matter, yes. When you give someone something, you are giving them control over that something.

You are switching back and forth between science and law here. Either you want to talk about the science saying that half the genetic material came from you, or you want to talk about whether or not the law says that you should therefore retain control over what happens to that genetic material. Pick one. Science ALSO tells you that you contributed that genetic material by essentially handing it to another person. And I'm not aware, off the top of my head, of any place in the law which says that you retain control over an object after giving it to someone else. Like I said before, possession is nine points of the law. She has possession; you don't.

Don't make the mistake that leftists do of thinking that the law can simply wave a magic wand and make Nature conform to human ideas of what's "fair" or "equitable" or "morally right". Nature doesn't give a damn, and will be what it is to serve it's purposes, human feelings on the subject be damned. You can pass all the laws you like, and it won't change the fact that she's got the kid inside her body. Your control over your genetic material ends when it leaves your possession, as a purely practical fact.

What would you say to the leftists here who may claim you are making their case for them? If the fetus is her possession, she can choose to abort it. If possession is "nine points of the law" then the choice---between giving birth and having an abortion--is ultimately hers to make.

This thread is making me think more than it should. Thinking is painful. :O

I would say that once the child is born, he is STILL in her possession, but that doesn't make it okay for her to decide to kill him. I'm not talking about the right-or-wrong of it with this argument; I'm talking about the practical fact of "the person with possession is the person with the decision-making power". What is or isn't the CORRECT and MORAL decision is a completely different question.