It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men's reproductive rights

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If men took the same attitude toward reproductive rights as women, it'd be legal to for a man to kill the bearer of his unborn child.


This is the most absurd notion I've read in a looong time. It rates up there with the gay car theory floating around one of the forums.

Women's reproductive rights afford a woman autonomy over her own body. To equate that right with the notion that men should be allowed to kill the mother of their unborn is an utterly stupid analogy.

Here's a stupid analogy in response to your stupid analogy:

If women took the same attitude toward's men's reproductive rights as some men, specifically the right for a man to weasel his way out of any financial obligation for a child he sired while acknowledging the fact that protected sex may still result in a pregnancy, it'd be legal for a pregnant woman to whack the penis off the father of her unborn child.

While at least I've got fodder for my next blog entry! Thanks Grady!




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
If women took the same attitude toward's men's reproductive rights as some men, specifically the right for a man to weasel his way out of any financial obligation for a child he sired while acknowledging the fact that protected sex may still result in a pregnancy, it'd be legal for a pregnant woman to whack the penis off the father of her unborn child.


Hmmm. Cute, but it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.


[edit on 2006/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by maria_stardust
If women took the same attitude toward's men's reproductive rights as some men, specifically the right for a man to weasel his way out of any financial obligation for a child he sired while acknowledging the fact that protected sex may still result in a pregnancy, it'd be legal for a pregnant woman to whack the penis off the father of her unborn child.


Hmmm. Cute, but it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.


There's nothing cute about my response. It is merely a stupid analogy in response to your stupid analogy. It is simply rhetoric that makes absolutely no sense, while it's sole purpose is to inflame.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I'm sorry you feel that way maria, but logic knows gender not.

It is very difficult for men to understand a womens motives and vice versa.

When abortion and other fetus rights fell into a woman's responsibility and control, men were belittled and emasculated. When the man was taken out of the equation entirely — until the fetus breathed air, it made us feel if we aren't important enough to make decisions about OUR fetus, not YOUR fetus, then you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a man's support and input, you had better give it to him immediately after the conception or you will just find trouble down the road. The degree of that trouble will depend on the man your dealing with.

This is not a light subject. This is as important to men as abortion rights are to women.

I was driving the other day. I got a flat tire. A tow truck happened to drive by and stopped to give me a hand. We together made a beautiful little spare out of the wheel of my spare, and the tire of his spare. When we finished, he said 'Ok, give it a go. See how she holds!" I replied, "mmm..don't know...I might just get rid of it, I'll have to take it off when I get home and replace it. Then I'll have to find a place to store it and so on, and I jsut don't know if it will hold." Mr. Towtruck guy replied, "I'll tell yo what, I'll follow you a ways down the road to be sure your ok." I thought a bit and said, "Nah, I don't need ya. Not going to use this beatiful spare we made. But it's on my car now, so It's mine. You should just mosey along now." He didn't make much of a fuss, got into in truck and drove away. Alas I sat there on the side of the road for quite some time, seemed like months. 9 of 'em. I decided to try out the beautiful spare we made together. I got but a few hundred feet, when the darn thing started to wobble. I didn't want to spend any money calling another tow truck to come fix me up, so I rummaged through the glove box and came across the tow truck guys # who had helped me make that beautiful spare. I gave him a call.
His reply to me was, "Who the $%@& are you?" and hung up.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
When abortion and other fetus rights fell into a woman's responsibility and control, men were belittled and emasculated. When the man was taken out of the equation entirely — until the fetus breathed air, it made us feel if we aren't important enough to make decisions about OUR fetus, not YOUR fetus, then you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a man's support and input, you had better give it to him immediately after the conception or you will just find trouble down the road. The degree of that trouble will depend on the man your dealing with.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hmmm.....can you imagine just how women felt when they were belittled to the point where she was unable to make her own decisions....about much of anything!!!
can you imagine what kind of hell she went through when she had no voice over what happened to her born children? or herself.

men have been suffering from this injustice for how long? less than a century, and only in a small part of a large world.....
how long have women suffered this greater injustice, millenia, and over the majority of the world.

tell ya what.....here's how we can solve the problem. we strilize every baby that's born, harvest the eggs and sperm, and the state can decide just how many kids are needed to sustain society, they can raise them, and every joe and jane shmoe taxpayer out there can support them!! will that make you happy?? regardless of how much say the father does or doesn't have regarding his children, if he doesn't support them then chances are good it will be the taxpayer pitching in for the child.....
women were expected to give up just about every right given to men for centuries upon centuries for the sake of the society...and still are in many parts of the world.
now, suck it up and give up a little yourselves....for the sake of society!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I was driving the other day. I got a flat tire. A tow truck happened to drive by and stopped to give me a hand. We together made a beautiful little spare out of the wheel of my spare, and the tire of his spare. When we finished, he said 'Ok, give it a go. See how she holds!" I replied, "mmm..don't know...I might just get rid of it, I'll have to take it off when I get home and replace it. Then I'll have to find a place to store it and so on, and I jsut don't know if it will hold." Mr. Towtruck guy replied, "I'll tell yo what, I'll follow you a ways down the road to be sure your ok." I thought a bit and said, "Nah, I don't need ya. Not going to use this beatiful spare we made. But it's on my car now, so It's mine. You should just mosey along now." He didn't make much of a fuss, got into in truck and drove away. Alas I sat there on the side of the road for quite some time, seemed like months. 9 of 'em. I decided to try out the beautiful spare we made together. I got but a few hundred feet, when the darn thing started to wobble. I didn't want to spend any money calling another tow truck to come fix me up, so I rummaged through the glove box and came across the tow truck guys # who had helped me make that beautiful spare. I gave him a call.
His reply to me was, "Who the $%@& are you?" and hung up.



How in the world did this thread become reduced to stupid analogies? The first stupid analogy asserted that if a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, then the father of the child should be allowed to kill the woman. This is a classic case of a flippant remark, posted by a man, that makes light of an extremely serious issue.

I posted the second stupid analogy in response. It followed the same absurd line of logic (or lack of, I dare say) established by Grady's post. The sole purpose of my stupid analogy was to highlight the crassness and sheer stupidity of Grady's analogy.

Now we come to our third stupid analogy, posted by another male. This analogy compares sex and a resulting pregnancy to man with a flat tire, a tow-truck driver who happens to be male, and wobbly spare tire. Only a guy could come up with this.

Back to the original premise of this thread: men's reproductive rights. Let's review, shall we...


Originally posted by maria_stardust
A male activist group aptly named The National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit that would grant men the right to disregard any financially responsibility for children they sire. The premise of the suit is if a woman becomes pregnant and decides to keep the baby, the father shouldn't be "forced" to support the child. After all, it's the woman's "choice" to continue with the pregnancy.


The bottom line is this, if a couple chooses to engage in sex there is always the risk of pregnancy. Both partners can use every available birth control resource out there, and there will still be a risk of pregnancy. Every risk carries personal responsiblity and accountability. The same holds true for unintended pregnancies.

Men's reproductive rights come into play before sex has even taken place. You guys have to acknowledge that by engaging in sex, you run the risk of fathering a child. If you are not ready to become a father, don't engage in sex. Once a baby is conceived, you are ethically and financially obligated in supporting that child. It is the risk you assume when you engage in sex.

By the way, can we please stop with the stupid analogies now.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Seems like abstaining from premarital sex frees you from making the hard decisions doesn't it? I don't mean that lightly and God knows what i was up to before I got married, but some of these "antiquated" theories seem to have some reason behind them, maybe all those people who believe in abstaining aren't just provincial judges making moral commentary but are actually right. Wow! Hindsight is really 20/20!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
While my ex and I were married we had two children. We both worked. She earned about $40k/yr and at the time I earned about $60k. We split parenting duties 50/50 becasue of our schedules. When we split she moved into her parent's home (they have 2 and were in FL for that part of the year) no longer worked (actually she was working under the table for cash) and filed welfare claims. The courts then saw fit to give her most of our property (even property I had owned long before the marriage --- as a matter of fact I see Christmas ornaments my family had when I was a child on her tree), a chunk of money from the sale of our house and left me with all (that's 100%) of the marital debt (which should have been paid-off with the proceeds from the house sale). All because she had the kids and in our state the only way I could have custody was if I could prove she was a drug addict having sex in front of the kids for money while brandishing a firearm (not what was happening but you get my point).

Not long after our split I lost my job. Naturally, I immediately began an earnest job search. Family Court told me I had to report to the local courthouse every week and present my job search for review by the judge (apparently their thinking is that I would rather starve to death homeless than pay child support). When I arrived for my first court-ordered meeting I waited in line for some time and then met with a court employee to review my job search. I presented a list of some 25 companies to whom I had sent my resume along with the position applied and date. It was rejected. This court employee (not a person that could get a job working in the kinds of offices I worked on her best day) explained that I had to have filled out a job application. I politely explained that in my field people apply via resume and only complete a job application when actually hired. She essentially told me I was lying and said the judge would put me in jail if I didn't provide a list of at least 10 places a week at which I had filled out job applications with contact names and phone numbers. So for the following 2mos I had to do my legitimate job search (which landed me a $75k job) and fill out 10 applications a week at 7-11, McDonalds, etc. I want you to understand I had to beg some of these people to let me fill out a job application.

I worked fulltime working to pay off a mountain of debt. My credit was ruined. I drove over an hour each way to pick-up and drop-off my kids EVERY weekend (that amounted to 5hrs of driving each weekend). I slept on an old couch given me by friends in a studio apartment. My kids slept in sleeping bags on the weekends. I could never go out (no money). My ex lived on the child support. She had a nice apartment, took vacations, went out, lived life. Remarried soon after the divorce was finalized and bought a house. She got nearly $500/mo in child support, ~$24,000/yr tax free.

My kids never got an allowance (they are 19 and 16 now). Any expense that came up I was expected to pay at least 1/2. I had to provide health insurance. Despite her role as the primary parent my oldest barely made it through HS because he tended to not do his homework. Despite repeated suggestions by teachers that a parent check his homework she was apparently too busy to do so.

As I said, she has lived off the kids' support all these years. She built a new home with a horse barn, paddock and several horses while allegedly making less than $25k a year. For you apologists, she is NOT the exception. Perhaps in the lower income brackets support may not meet basic requirements but after a certain income level it most certainly does. And what of her obligation to work? I learned from the kids when they got older that they were, in fact, latchkey kids. They were home alone after school for 3+ hours every day for several years. This is OK? Also, support is tax-free. She doesn't have to declare it (because it is technically the kids' money) but can use it when applying for credit as part of HER income. I cannot deduct what I pay for support off my taxes, I cannot deduct the expenses I incur to see my kids (gas, travel, etc.). I don't even get the dependent tax deductions (my ex and her new husband get those).

I know these kids are mine but I bring all this up because it plays to a larger issue: women using children as an economic benefit at the expense of men. We've all heard of 'welfare mothers' having far more children than they can care for because of the increase in benefits. In addition, paternity fraud --- a woman's making a man pay support for a a child that is not his is a MUCH bigger problem than many people would have you believe:


The National Law Journal recently reported that "paternity fraud is rampant in the United States." Paternity fraud involves a woman's claiming, dishonestly, that a particular man has fathered children with her. By making such fraudulent claims, a woman is able to collect child support payments from a man who had nothing to do with siring her children. Indeed, even after a man has successfully disproved paternity, using DNA tests, courts have sometimes required the non-father to continue to pay child support.


Full Story

And in many cases, men prove through DNA paternity that they are NOT the father and the courts STILL make them pay:


The stories of victims of paternity fraud often provoke disbelief. Many men are falsely assigned paternity in default judgments and are compelled by the state to pay 18 years of child support for children whom DNA tests have proved are not theirs. Many of these men are not properly served notice of the paternity proceedings, never get their day in court and have no idea they are "fathers" until their wages are garnisheed.


Full Story

Do women share the financial reproductive burden?


The Florida Dept. of Revenue has statistics that state that over 70% of men pay their child support. But when women are ordered to pay child support, less then 5% of those pay anything. Dept. of Revenue in Florida does not enforce or prosecute these women.



I've been --- and continue to go --- through the wringer. I believe the biological father has an obligation to support his children on an equal basis with the mother. Both parties know the risk of pregnancy. Both parties should pay. Neither party by virtue of their gender should be discrimated against as far as custody goes. Neither party should receive a financial advantage. Child support should be tax deductible. Ordinary expenses should be as well. Custodial parents receiving support should be obligated to account for their spending of the support monies.



[edit on 6-9-2006 by jtma508]Full Story

[edit on 6-9-2006 by jtma508]

[edit on 6-9-2006 by jtma508]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Why does a man not have the same abortion rights as a female? The fetus is 50% his, just as it is 50% hers.I belive this is what GradyPhilpott was getting at. If a female can destroy without consent, a fertilized egg, so should the male. It doesn't matter who's body it takes place in, 50% of that new life is not thiers.

Just wait till cloning and gene splicing is perfected, then women will not have a choice at all. At some point, men will figure out how to grow a female with no overies( to vent sexual desires without the complications of pregnacy, a mere living sex doll), and if a child is wanted, one could easily be grown/created. Thus nullifing the actual need for females to reproduce......alternately this situation could be reversed or done to both. leaving any means of reproduction down to DNA extraction only, making sex a passtime. Males are the only ones that carry both X and Y chromosomes, giving a huge advantage over females (cloning wise), as far as non natural birth goes( gay men may look at this as a god send, as they will finally be able to "reproduce" with thier partner geneticly, and still have a choice of it being female or male). As an example, with the right tech, two men could make a female useing that part of thier genetic structure, two females cannot do this lacking the male chromosome. It all seems awefully sci-fi, but I can see gay couples pushing this tech in the near future.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Why does a man not have the same abortion rights as a female? The fetus is 50% his, just as it is 50% hers.I belive this is what GradyPhilpott was getting at. If a female can destroy without consent, a fertilized egg, so should the male. It doesn't matter who's body it takes place in, 50% of that new life is not thiers.

So you think it's okay for men to dictate when they are concubines and when they are cattle? When they want incubators; force them to carry it to term.. when they don't want to be daddies and just want the sex.. force them to undergo a surgical violation which they may not want? It DOES matter who's body it takes place in as she is the one that has to carry and bare it and live with the consequences [both in lifestyle and emotionally].. sorry but that trumps 50% genetics. Saying it 'doesn't matter' is basically saying men should have the final say with what happens to women. You do realise that slavery is illegal don't you? :shk:

I'm disgusted. I've been reading this "She didn't ask me permission not to have an abortion and I want to sue!" bs alot lately.

Read carefully:
Sperm+ egg= pregnancy.
It's not Sperm= egg= woman goes and asks for permission or goes to jail for not having an abortion on command.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Why does a man not have the same abortion rights as a female? The fetus is 50% his, just as it is 50% hers.I belive this is what GradyPhilpott was getting at. If a female can destroy without consent, a fertilized egg, so should the male. It doesn't matter who's body it takes place in, 50% of that new life is not thiers.


Men don't have abortion rights because men can't have abortions. It's just not biologically possible. However, men do have reproductive rights. It's true that reproductive rights differ for men and women, that's mostly in regards to the issue of autonomy.

While it is true that zygote is 50% egg and 50% sperm, the zygote is hosted by the woman. Remember the old adage, ownership is 9/10ths of the law. That being said, it should come as no surprise reproductive rights differ between the sexes. After all, we're not talking about community property such as joint bank account.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I'm disgusted. I've been reading this "She didn't ask me permission not to have an abortion and I want to sue!" bs alot lately.

Read carefully:
Sperm+ egg= pregnancy.
It's not Sperm= egg= woman goes and asks for permission or goes to jail for not having an abortion on command.


I absolutely agree! It boils down to men wanting to have control over a woman's body. We are not chattel. I made an arguement on another thread that was pretty much ignored, but is absolutely relevent. It goes something like this:

Let's suppose a woman wanted to have a baby, but her partner didn't. She can't very well force him to donate his sperm. A man would claim the right to autonomy over his own body. They would be exercising their reproductive right not to have a child. Heaven forbid we trample a man's autonomy!

Yet some people don't see anything wrong with stripping a woman of her autonomy. I sense an ironic double standard here.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
We're not talking about YOUR body. We're talking about OUR baby. It's not about control. That's your complex. You all have obviously missed the point in my post.

If you want 100% control of a baby while it is in utero, then you can keep that control ex utero. YOU CANNOT have it both ways. The law may say differently, but men's feelings will NEVER change.

What's wrong with my analogy? Did it make too much sense? There's only one thing stupid in this thread, and it's your argument.

I won't be returning, because my post was made, and will let it speak for itself.
I hope you contributors that have such anger and hatred towards men, copulate with men that don't feel as strongly as I do about this subject.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
We're not talking about YOUR body. We're talking about OUR baby. It's not about control. That's your complex. You all have obviously missed the point in my post.

If you want 100% control of a baby while it is in utero, then you can keep that control ex utero. YOU CANNOT have it both ways. The law may say differently, but men's feelings will NEVER change.

What's wrong with my analogy? Did it make too much sense? There's only one thing stupid in this thread, and it's your argument.

I won't be returning, because my post was made, and will let it speak for itself.
I hope you contributors that have such anger and hatred towards men, copulate with men that don't feel as strongly as I do about this subject.


To be quite honest, your analogy made absolutely no sense. It truly was a terrible analogy. But the fact that several bad analogies were posted is beside the point. This thread deals with the issue of men's reproductive rights not men's feelings.


Originally posted by maria_stardust
The bottom line is this, if a couple chooses to engage in sex there is always the risk of pregnancy. Both partners can use every available birth control resource out there, and there will still be a risk of pregnancy. Every risk carries personal responsiblity and accountability. The same holds true for unintended pregnancies.

Men's reproductive rights come into play before sex has even taken place. You guys have to acknowledge that by engaging in sex, you run the risk of fathering a child. If you are not ready to become a father, don't engage in sex. Once a baby is conceived, you are ethically and financially obligated in supporting that child. It is the risk you assume when you engage in sex.


It is men who cannot have it both ways. You cannot expect to responsibly engage in sex without accepting responsibility for the risk of an unexpected pregnancy.

And yes, this issue is about control. Decisions involving a pregnancy deal with the mother's body. It is an issue of autonomy, which is the basic right for control over one's body.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
We're not talking about YOUR body. We're talking about OUR baby. It's not about control. That's your complex. You all have obviously missed the point in my post.

Sorry but there is no difference between the body of a fetus and the body of it's gestating in as it relies on it to live. A fetus' rights should not outstrip the mothers.. if it does it would devalue the mothers.

If you want 100% control of a baby while it is in utero, then you can keep that control ex utero. YOU CANNOT have it both ways.

er. after it's born the umbilical cord is cut so yeah women can have iot both ways.

Your analogy? It reduces the worth of a woman from that of a person to an automobile.. it also trivialises the fact that fetuses grow in women. It would be nice I guess if fetuses could be switched from one parent to another like borrowing a spare tire but thats not reality so such analogies are just ignorant.

I hope you contributors that have such anger and hatred towards men, copulate with men that don't feel as strongly as I do about this subject.

I personally don't hate men.. and none of the women on this thread have claimed to. . as for 'copulating'.. I trend to be very selective. I certainly would not be with a man who thinks pregnancy is something that women do just to be spiteful or to ruin the fun of sex. In fact.. I wouldn't consider him to be a man at all.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by riley]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:19 AM
link   
"force them to undergo a surgical violation which they may not want?"

It would not be surgical, they would be grown in a test tube to not have overies(or whatever the scientists come up with to make them infirtile). All I'm saying, is if you push the wrong people away, they will make you useless through other means( in this case science). If I could clone myself (or clone both of my female chromosones for a daughter) without the need of a female for it to gestate in, I would. The more rights you take away from men, the worse it will be for you, the normaly born females. Heck, men could just wait till we can create living sex dolls if they want( however that would work, be it through advanced robotics or genitic enginering). I'm not saying I would do this, but at some point you may push the wrong father into doing something that totaly negates the need for women as a whole. What if we men didn't need you, how would that make you feel.....right now that is how you make other men feel by taking away there rights to 50% of that new life that is created or destroyed. If America and England had a joint venture( finacially), then one scraps that venture reguardless of what the others opinions are....is that right? shouldn't the one who scraped the venture be lible to PAY back any loss. Lets go even further. A man and a women creates a child using thier DNA, but instead of useing the mother, they use a test tube and some type of birthing chamber. Would a male then have 50% say in what happens. Just because it happens in your body, it does not give you final say....your body was designed biologicly to produce offspring, and carry them until birth, that does not negate the males rights. That, is quite selfish, much like if men negated the need for a female to be present for the birth process. How would you feel, if men made your biological/life function useless? What is more repressive, giving a man a say in the child he helped produce, or geneticly creating living sex dolls that cant reproduce, because there is no scientific need for females to create children anymore? How would you feel if a male scientist made your life function useless through science, or would you be happy that we found a complete work around to needing an female for reproduction without the pain or pregnacy? It doesn't matter whos body it takes place in, it's a joint venture, unless you want to be made biologicly useless from a scientific standpoint. If you keep pushing it will happen in the near future.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   
LordBaskettIV

lol!!!

it seems like whatever the general public doesn't take responsibility for, the government is forced to do it for them, thus child support...and the choas involved within that system, foster care---we all know the nightmare that's become....ect...
in plain simple words, if men and women cannot find a way to reasonably come to terms with each other when it comes to their offspring, the government will intervene to prevent social chaos. and, well, your dream might become reality. only, the gov't is also very in tune with having more power, so do you really think you will be able to raise your kids? I mean, just think how much money they can suck from the taxpayer under the guise of raising the next generation!!!


people need to quite shirking thier responsiblity, thinking that another will pick up the slack, that other is our government, and they are gaining alot of power in the process!

by the way.....women should have a say as to how many children they bring into the world.....they have to have a say, and for far too long they didn't have a say, still don't in many countries. in many countries, it's laughable to think that they can just refuse sex still, what with them being married off at young ages, being denied even the rights that their young sons enjoy....we are in a transition period, and really have little idea where to go. but one thing is for sure, going backward isn't the answer, women should retain the rights that they've fought for over this past century.
and even if this argument was won against women, what would be next....well, I was supporting her, but she chose to move out, with the kids. it was irresponsible for her to move out if she couldn't support them alone? face it now! we are in a economy where very few men could support those kids along also!
and I've also had this later argument come up in discussions about divorce, so it' isnt far fetched!

[edit on 7-9-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
"force them to undergo a surgical violation which they may not want?"

It would not be surgical,

I was talking about abortion. Read it again.

they would be grown in a test tube to not have overies(or whatever the scientists come up with to make them infirtile).

Funny. I thought fetuses grew in uteruses. Maybe you should start telling us all about the womens reproductive organs after you get a clue.
BTW. ALL fetuses start off more female than male [the ovaries become testes].

All I'm saying, is if you push the wrong people away, they will make you useless through other means( in this case science).

I look forward to seeing someone figure out how to grow a fetus from sperm cell.


Heck, men could just wait till we can create living sex dolls if they want( however that would work, be it through advanced robotics or genitic enginering).

You could always buy a blow up one.. at least then you won't have to worry about them having a mind of their own.

I'm not saying I would do this, but at some point you may push the wrong father into doing something that totaly negates the need for women as a whole.

Well so far the only uses you've listed for women is to be forced to bare children and to be sex dolls.. so are they only meant to have abortions when they are told to play sex doll? Make up your mind.

Just because it happens in your body, it does not give you final say....

Yeah it does. There is no 'just because'.. if women didn't have final say over their own bodies.. that would mean that they belong to someone else. Sorry but I don't believe in slavery.

your body was designed biologicly to produce offspring, and carry them until birth, that does not negate the males rights.

Your hand is not biological designed to masterbate but I'm quite sure you've figured out how. Do NOT tell me what my purpose in life is. Going by your logic.. reproducing via rape should be a-okay because women are designed for it. Is that what you think? :shk:

How would you feel, if men made your biological/life function useless?

My ego is not centred around my 'biological function' so I wouldn't care.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by riley]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
"I look forward to seeing someone figure out how to grow a fetus from sperm cell"

Learn some science, we can grow a fetus using DNA and cloning. And, males carry both an X and Y chromosones, negating the need for females in scientific, not biological reproduction of the species. A male can, through science and genetic enginering, mix his female chromosones with another males female chomosones to produce a female. Women cannot do this, they have no male chomosone.

When I mention "sex dolls" they could really be made any number of ways. A good AI in a semi biomechanical host could suffice, or women cold be geneticly grown so they can't reproduce. The latter is far more probable( within the next 5-10 years, not in the USA of course).

I am not condoning rape, I am highly against it. What I am getting at, is that at some point in the near future, if men are pushed far enough into thinking that they have no say in the childs first 9 months of gestation, they can and will negate the need for you and females as a whole for procreation. Personaly, I see myself as a sentient being and consciousness that is niether male nor female. Yes my body is male, therefore I am subjected to the chemical responces that my body pushes onto me....but I can easily deny those chemical emotions, they are NOT what controls my way of acting or my consciousness. You as a person should not define yourself by what reproductive organs you are born/blessed with, its highly animalistic and unlogical. Gender is a road block for the evolution of humans as a whole. Science will negate that need.

And no, I do not belive that if a female has 50% of MY genetic material growing in her that its soley hers until it comes out during birth. That is repression. If I carried a child, the female has 50% say it what happens, I would accept this before procreation. If they wanted to keep or terminate it, they have 50% say in the matter.

"Your hand is not biological designed to masterbate but I'm quite sure you've figured out how. Do NOT tell me what my purpose in life is. Going by your logic.. reproducing via rape should be a-okay because women are designed for it. Is that what you think?"

You might want to find out who you are arguing with first, I am celibate and do not masterbate, I see that as what monkeys and other animals partake in. And no women are not designed for rape, they are designed to birth children if that is what is desired as a species. Reproduction can and should be through agreement only if it involes two people. My logic is that being male or female does not allow one to have a trump card over the other. And pretty soon science will get rid of the females trump card over men, concerning reproduction that is.

"Yeah it does. There is no 'just because'.. if women didn't have final say over their own bodies.. that would mean that they belong to someone else. Sorry but I don't believe in slavery."

Medicly and scientificly that new zygote/embryo in you, is not part of you. It is seperate, its DNA is not yours, it is a mixture. Making it seperate from you. To be honest, I do not belive that the female or male have a right to destroy a growing life form until it has means to actually protect itself from such ingnorant actions on the part of its parents. Who gave YOU the right to decide?

[edit on 7-9-2006 by LordBaskettIV]

[edit on 7-9-2006 by LordBaskettIV]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
. How would you feel, if men made your biological/life function useless?


Well as it stands now men can't have babies, does that make them useless? You attitude is obvious, women are for sex and procreation only, huh? Wow, gotta feel sorry for your wife/girlfriend/daughters.







 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join