Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Men's rights to Women's reproductive organs - You don't have any.

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Socrato
No one would argue that a woman has a right to her body, but when she agreed to have sex with a man she agreed to risk getting pregnant.


In the age of the 21st century, risk of pregnancy in the fist world isnt as high as what it was. We've has such a thing as the sexual revolution in which women could embrace their bodies and sexual needs without constant threat of pregnancy. When she agree'd to have sex its very unlikely she was agreeing to risk pregnancy, she was more than likely agreeing to show physical affection to another human being - Yano, like were suppose to. If you only have sex to procreate then i feel sorry for you.



A baby is a separate entity which is NOT the woman's body.


That "baby" cannot survive without the woman's body, so by rights, she's laying down the law here, not the father and not the "baby"


Yes it happens to reside inside the woman's body


Its not coincidental my love, there's probably a good reason why dont have the capacity to give birth. Her body, her choice.


edit on 26-8-2012 by intrepid because: Offensive content removed.




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Forcing a woman to carry a child and give birth is NOT a "good deal" for her. Pregnancy and childbirth put her life at risk. It's not a "good deal" for her at all.


Then she needs to keep her vagina away from penis. Being a human is being a human. Sometimes you make babies. If you want no part of that, then don't have sex.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Once a man impregnates a woman, he has to understand that he has very little say on what happens inside the woman's body. If she decides she doesn't want to take the baby to term, then that's her body, her decision. If she doesn't, her choice.

I do think that if the man DOESN'T want a child, he should also have the right to opt out of fatherhood. There should be a window of time he has to decide. A short enough window that the woman can still abort if she doesn't want to handle the pregnancy, childbirth and raising of the child on her own. If the man decides he doesn't want to be a father, he can sign his rights and obligations away and that gives the woman time to have an abortion or make the decision to be solely responsible for the child or put it up for adoption.

It's the fairest way, IMO.

If men had the plumbing inside their body, they would have the "say". If a man doesn't want the chance of a baby, AND doesn't want to face turning over the decision to a woman, he needs to take 100% responsibility for making sure that he doesn't get her pregnant.


Once both the woman and man decide to have a baby. That decision was made by BOTH. So from that point BOTH decisions have to be taken account and the resolution should be that where BOTH are satisfied. That means BOTH decisions should have the same gravity.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Socrato
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Maybe you should stop bringing your personal drama in here and stop pretending like just because you had a pregnancy scare and someone wanted you to have a baby that your logic applies to everyone alive. Oh and stop sleeping around too.



Its not personal drama, its educating people on the rights of the individual. Let me break it down even simpler so you can understand:

Women is pregnant - Her body, her right to abortion.
Man has knocked up a woman - He has no right to force her to bring the child to term because its not his body.



So then if the man doesn't want the child, but she keeps it, the man shouldn't be on the hook for "modern " welfare.



Absolutely agree.



EQUAL RIGHTS. Too many women are gaming the system.


Rights to your own reproductive organs shouldn't have to be fought for. They are a given.



This is the outcome when so called women believe that money makes the character and is a measure of worth.What an evil game.


Off topic, but you cant deny that men also play that game when the media pushes the agenda that "Power/wealth = beautiful women"


The truth is: money comes after you master your love/ career, and you can't hide your satisfaction



Not sure what you're getting at but this thread is about a woman's reproductive rights and how men don't have the right to make a woman bare a child.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Socrato
No one would argue that a woman has a right to her body, but when she agreed to have sex with a man she agreed to risk getting pregnant.


In the age of the 21st century, risk of pregnancy in the fist world isnt as high as what it was. We've has such a thing as the sexual revolution in which women could embrace their bodies and sexual needs without constant threat of pregnancy. When she agree'd to have sex its very unlikely she was agreeing to risk pregnancy, she was more than likely agreeing to show physical affection to another human being - Yano, like were suppose to. If you only have sex to procreate then i feel sorry for you.

Then this woman is an idiot. Everyone knows that having sex means you are risking making a baby. If she is too childish to handle that then she is not mature enough for sex.
edit on 26-8-2012 by Socrato because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Socrato
"You dont have rights over someone else's body."

Oh I forgot a baby isn't someone else.


So you are suggesting that in utero fetuses have the right to control the bodies of their prospective mothers?
Oh, you forgot the mother is someone else too huh?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
seems to me that the OP's beef is carrying a sprog (a baby) for 9 months and thats the basis of her "rights" arguement - but the sprog has a whole lifetime after being born though, so while i do agree that a woman has primacy during pregnancy, the OP's outlook is remarkably shortsighted. Pregnancy is not the only issue in abortion, many would say that the life that could be lived afterwards is rather an important part of the decision/issue too.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Socrato

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Myendica
Im going to leave the op with a small saying. Life, is often about sacrifice. Sometimes you need to step aside, and put your emotions ad feelings ad beliefs aside, and do what is right for all involved, not just whats best for yourself.



This expectation that would should "Sacrifice" for others is gender role brainwashing. She has rights to her reproductive organs and they should be acknowledged and RESPECTED.
. Where did I say anything about gender in that quote? You just hate men dont you.


I read that "RESPECTED" as "worshipped" and I don't think I'm too far off base with this one. Thank goodness people with such harsh and ignorant views are usually stuck low in life and do not control others or make laws.
excuse me? Typical. I know your typee. Selfish.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


I, politely, disagree.

If it were not for me driving the mother of my child to her doctors appointments, providing a stable home for her to live in while pregnant, food to eat, etc. etc. She had no family, no place to live, no car, no job, no where to go. Had I not been there to drive her to her emergency C-section, my son wouldn't be here right now.

It takes two people to make a baby. One parent should not take precedence over another. The mother of my child wanted to have him, until she had him. She thought being pregnant was cute, then basically, bailed.

All I'm trying to point out is, not everything is clear and cut with this topic, thus a blanket judgement should not be given.
edit on 26-8-2012 by QUANTUMGR4V17Y because: spelling




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
seems to me that the OP's beef is carrying a sprog (a baby) for 9 months and thats the basis of her "rights" arguement - but the sprog has a whole lifetime after being born though, so while i do agree that a woman has primacy during pregnancy, the OP's outlook is remarkably shortsighted. Pregnancy is not the only issue in abortion, many would say that the life that could be lived afterwards is rather an important part of the decision/issue too.



Not really, my argument is logically based on the fact that the baby needs a host to grow and develop over 9month, a woman has the right to choose not to be that host and its her choice alone.

The issue here is simply that some men seem to be under the impression that they have rights to command a woman's reproductive organs. They don't, this thread is a memo to those men.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by Socrato
"You dont have rights over someone else's body."

Oh I forgot a baby isn't someone else.


So you are suggesting that in utero fetuses have the right to control the bodies of their prospective mothers?
Oh, you forgot the mother is someone else too huh?


I didn't make the original argument. Take it up with Search Light inc.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Jepic
 



Originally posted by Jepic
The woman doesn't have a right to abort if the man wants the baby.


Actually, she absolutely does.



So for example in the case of a woman who wants abortion but the man does not, a good deal would be for the woman to have the baby but hand full responsibility of raising the child to the man.


Forcing a woman to carry a child and give birth is NOT a "good deal" for her. Pregnancy and childbirth put her life at risk. It's not a "good deal" for her at all.


I don't know how the law regarding abortion is in the United States, however I was writing about how it should be not how it is or isn't.

It's the most equal and balanced decision that can be reached. Ignoring/denying the man's decision is basically absolute disregard to his views as a father. Like I said if you disregard/ignore his views you are basically saying "I have absolute disrespect to your wants and needs about the baby. You are merely the necessity for me to have the baby. That's it."



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
what about surogate mother ?


suppose
a wife can conceive but not keep a pregnancy and she and her husband decide to use a surogate mother.

the husband and wife spend a few minutes to give their cells to be conceived in the lab , the surogate mother spend 9 month.

a nursemaid breastfeed the baby.

who has the rights to the baby ?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
So ... a man only has rights and obligations to his children if ...
- the children are born and in need of money.
- the pregnant woman says she is keeping the baby and needs financial support from the man.

So to the men out there .... don't get a woman pregnant unless you are prepared to give up your parental rights. Also, don't get a woman pregnant unless you are prepared to give up your money to support the child if the mother decides not to kill the child in the womb.

Bottom line ... be careful with your 'special men' .... (hit tip to 'That 70s Show')



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Socrato
 



Originally posted by Socrato
Oh and stop sleeping around too.


Oh! We hit the jackpot!


If a man and a woman have consensual sex and a pregnancy results, the man gets "cheated" out of his choice and the woman's a whore. The man becomes the victim and the woman is "sleeping around"...

You know why men get so frustrated with their lack of control over women and their bodies? Because many men HATE feminism. They've done all they can to oppress the women's independence. They intend to keep us from rising up, by any means necessary, including calling us such names as "feminazis", selfish and whores and making laws against our autonomy.

Their mindset is that as long as a woman has sex because she wants to procreate, we can allow that, but if she has sex for her own pleasure, and gets pregnant, then she's a worthless whore who is "sleeping around".

If a woman deigns to have sex for any other reason than to serve the family (procreate) she should be punished for being selfish and promiscuous.

I hear these men say that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex. My question is if men are so concerned about the possibility of a unwanted pregnancy, why don't THEY quit having sex? Why don't THEY atop "sleeping around" like whores? If they're so concerned about creating an unwanted child, and having a "say" in abortion, why don't THEY guarantee that the woman doesn't get pregnant by refusing to have sex with her? That's what they expect of us. Why don't they ask the same of themselves?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by QUANTUMGR4V17Y
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


I, politely, disagree.

If it were not for me driving the mother of my child to her doctors appointments, providing a stable home for her to live in while pregnant, food to eat, etc. etc. She had no family, no place to live, no car, no job, no where to go. Had I not been there to drive her to her emergency C-section, my son wouldn't be here right now.



While you respectfully disagree, you note that your wife willingly had your child - Which is wonderful. However, if your wife got pregnant again and decided she didnt want another child, its her decision to make and no one elses.


It takes two people to make a baby.


Takes ONE person to carry it for 9 months and bring it to term.



One parent should not take precedence over another.


In that 9 month period men dont really do much, dont take more credit than you should.



The mother of my child wanted to have him, until she had him. She thought being pregnant was cute, then basically, bailed.



If she was more educated about pregnancy and what it takes to be a mother, maybe that situation could have been avoided.



All I'm trying to point out is, not everything is clear and cut with this topic, thus a blanket judgement should not be given.


My aim is only talk about the initial 9 month of growing a baby. Im talking about a woman's right to her own reproductive organs. Im not talking about after the child is born, not about custody cases or child support, im talking about her right to not have a baby.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Wife whose husband became secret sperm donor calls for change in the law to require partners' consent


The wife of a man who donated his sperm without her knowledge is campaigning for married men to require their spouse's consent for the process.

She argues that in married relationships, sperm donation should be a decision both parties are involved in; she says in marriage, sperm should be considered some kind of 'marital asset'.

Daily Mail


The irony, the double standards



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Socrato

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Myendica
Im going to leave the op with a small saying. Life, is often about sacrifice. Sometimes you need to step aside, and put your emotions ad feelings ad beliefs aside, and do what is right for all involved, not just whats best for yourself.



This expectation that would should "Sacrifice" for others is gender role brainwashing. She has rights to her reproductive organs and they should be acknowledged and RESPECTED.
. Where did I say anything about gender in that quote? You just hate men dont you.


I read that "RESPECTED" as "worshipped" and I don't think I'm too far off base with this one. Thank goodness people with such harsh and ignorant views are usually stuck low in life and do not control others or make laws.


Does throwing babies in the garbage because you don't feel mature today make you feel powerful and elevated?
That life that was snuffed out had a divine mission and it was all because the creator was trying to communicate in one of the only ways he knows how to,. Now the mesages are scrambled because of the manipulation of the order



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 



Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
As a man I don't have any rights in regards to your reproductive organs, so we agree on that, but I do have rights to the unborn innocent human being that I am 50% responsible for creating.


If you want a 6 week old fetus, then she can remove it and give it to you. But you CANNOT use her body to incubate your fetus for you. Unless there's a legal agreement up front, of course.



It isn't about your ovaries, it's about the respect for and preservation of innocent life.


You also cannot dictate that others have respect for the same things you do. If she doesn't share your respect, then there's nothing you can do to make her.

To force a woman to carry and bear a child that she doesn't want is nothing more than sexual slavery. Welcome to 2012, where a woman cannot be forced to give up her autonomy.






top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join