Male reproductive rights?

[Old Koridai]

We don't have any reproductive rights except for giving consent to sex.

Ever heard of a woman raping a man? Maybe.
Ever heard of a man winning a lawsuit for being raped by a woman? Unlikely.

You can't rape a man because he ALWAYS wants it. In ANY situation. No exceptions.
[/feminist]

[Euronion]

Now, for the converse, what if I want the child, want to be a father, and the woman decides to kill it because she doesn't want to be a mother?

Well, thanks to advances in IVF technology, there is a solution to that problem; a male pregnancy. It's quite simple; you get a zygote implanted into either your abdominal wall or the wall of your bowel, where it grows a placenta and starts maturing. In nine months or so, you just get a caesarian section and away you go. Of course, you'd be the first person in history to do so and there are a host of associated risks that could very well kill you both, but it takes sacrifices to raise a child, right? And think of the good you'll do for the male reproductive rights movement.

one problem, men are not biologically structured to carry a child, we don't have the right hormones, we don't have any way to give the child nutrition so basically hte child would just die, lets just get down to the center of the arguement, does a man get a choice as to whether his son or daughter gets assassinated or not?

[The Black Forrest]

probably not well? there are, however, species that reproduce asexually. Moreover there are now sperm banks aplenty. You really don't need us all that much at this point.

because it's her body. You do not get to for a person to give you a kidney, you do not get to force a woman to bear your child, it's that simple. If you don't want to have a kid, and you're a male, either don't have sex, get a vasectomy or come up with a legal agreement with your SO.

he wants to have the child and she doesn't so why doesn't she have the surgery so she won't get pregnant and kill a child

Well skippy. Some do. But of the two; it's less evasive for the male to get cut then for the woman to get her tubes tied.

[Alien Space Bats]

If you're asking whether, as a man, you (or I) have the right to demand that a woman spend nine months of her life carrying our offspring to term and then risk their life giving birth at the end of that nine-month term, then I think the fairly obvious answer is "no".

so your basically saying that if I get my girlfirend pregnant, I pay for everything, I support her, I want to have a child, she can just say, I want to kill the baby because I want a baby when I want it...

Pretty much. I mean, whose body is doing all the hard work and taking the risk, anyway? Hers... or yours?

You want the right to decide? Then you carry the damned thing.

Sticking your dick inside a woman doesn't make her body yours.

... sounds more like a stuborn child herself...

You're kidding me, right? You want the right to commandeer her body for your reproductive purposes, and you think her wanting a say in the matter makes her a stubborn child?!?

The childish thing here is not her demanding the right to control her own destiny; the childish thing here is you insisting that you have the right to veto her decision for your own selfish purposes.

Gloria Steinem put it succinctly: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people, too."

... if it is your son that is going to be murdered...

The surest sign of a man who's a sexist: Talking about "sons" instead of "children", because everybody knows that daughters aren't real people.

... because your girlfriend just didn't feel like itm it is somehow correct...

Again, I ask: Whose body is doing all the work and taking all the risk?

... I can understand taking this to court and then judging whether the father is prepared to take care of the child if the mother refuses, but this puts the woman in absolute power...

Of course she has absolute power: It's her God-damned body, not yours. She's a living human being, not a walking incubator for your progeny.

... and in absolute power of your reprofuction, meaning, you cannot have a child until the woman wants you to, and if you can't. too bad bub looks like your family which has survived evolution for millions of years, that survived the Black Plague, that has lasted for generations, is going to die out because the woman did not feel like it

LOL! You're bitching because you can't demand that a woman bear your child? What kind of fucking chutzpah is that?

If you're that set on making sure you have a baby, go knock up some good Bible-thumper.

[The Black Forrest]

We don't have any reproductive rights except for giving consent to sex.

Ever heard of a woman raping a man? Maybe.
Ever heard of a man winning a lawsuit for being raped by a woman? Unlikely.

You can't rape a man because he ALWAYS wants it. In ANY situation. No exceptions.
[/feminist]

Female and breathing.

That's all a couple of buddies require.....

[Risottia]

You can't rape a man because he ALWAYS wants it. In ANY situation. No exceptions.
[/feminist]

You're a troll. And a bad one at that.

[Arumdaum]

Now, for the converse, what if I want the child, want to be a father, and the woman decides to kill it because she doesn't want to be a mother?

Screw someone else, or adopt someone.

Nature is unfair.

[DaWoad]

Well, thanks to advances in IVF technology, there is a solution to that problem; a male pregnancy. It's quite simple; you get a zygote implanted into either your abdominal wall or the wall of your bowel, where it grows a placenta and starts maturing. In nine months or so, you just get a caesarian section and away you go. Of course, you'd be the first person in history to do so and there are a host of associated risks that could very well kill you both, but it takes sacrifices to raise a child, right? And think of the good you'll do for the male reproductive rights movement.

one problem, men are not biologically structured to carry a child, we don't have the right hormones, we don't have any way to give the child nutrition so basically hte child would just die, lets just get down to the center of the arguement, does a man get a choice as to whether his son or daughter gets assassinated or not?

er . . .no? I mean I don't think anyone except the assassin and whoever payed the assassin have a say in that?

[The Black Forrest]

Well, thanks to advances in IVF technology, there is a solution to that problem; a male pregnancy. It's quite simple; you get a zygote implanted into either your abdominal wall or the wall of your bowel, where it grows a placenta and starts maturing. In nine months or so, you just get a caesarian section and away you go. Of course, you'd be the first person in history to do so and there are a host of associated risks that could very well kill you both, but it takes sacrifices to raise a child, right? And think of the good you'll do for the male reproductive rights movement.

one problem, men are not biologically structured to carry a child, we don't have the right hormones, we don't have any way to give the child nutrition so basically hte child would just die, lets just get down to the center of the arguement, does a man get a choice as to whether his son or daughter gets assassinated or not?

Sure. Get yourself cut and you won't have assassinations.

[Sorratsin]

does a man get a choice as to whether his son or daughter gets assassinated or not?

Yes. It takes two to conceive, if you don't want your kid to be aborted, don't have unprotected sex with a women who doesn't want kids/you can't trust.

[Hathradic States]

As in "be excessively cruel". Can you think of any a crueler torture than to be prepared for fatherhood, to be prepared to love and cherish your child. To be willing to marry the mother, only to have said mother decide one day that she didn't want it and she gets an abortion. To me, that is one hell of a bitch move. I watched it happen to one of my friends, and he was nearly destroyed by it. To me, that is not right, and it is not just.

To me, that's a disgusting attitude. It's like justifying rape because you're really excited about impregnating a woman but she changes her mind before you can ejaculate.

The two are not alike. Rape is rape, and wrong no matter who the fuck you are. (of course, the rapist argues against that, but what does the opinion of scum matter?). When I speak of "reproductive rights" I am speaking of when the child is consensual, as would most people. A child of rape is a different animal alltogether (yet my stance on abortion is not changed)

[Avenio]

one problem, men are not biologically structured to carry a child, we don't have the right hormones, we don't have any way to give the child nutrition so basically hte child would just die, lets just get down to the center of the arguement, does a man get a choice as to whether his son or daughter gets assassinated or not?

Hormones don't enter into it. Female reproductive hormones deal with ovulation and the uterus, not the actual development of the baby itself. And yes, the baby would get enough nutrients; implantation can occur almost anywhere in the upper female reproductive tract naturally, (And other places in rarer instances) and the placenta will grow into existing blood supplies. In fact, an ectopic pregnancy is exactly what a male pregnancy would be; except instead of commonly occurring in the fallopian tubes, it would be in the abdominal cavity.

[DaWoad]

To me, that's a disgusting attitude. It's like justifying rape because you're really excited about impregnating a woman but she changes her mind before you can ejaculate.

The two are not alike. Rape is rape, and wrong no matter who the fuck you are. (of course, the rapist argues against that, but what does the opinion of scum matter?). When I speak of "reproductive rights" I am speaking of when the child is consensual, as would most people. A child of rape is a different animal alltogether (yet my stance on abortion is not changed)

is slavery wrong?

[Euronion]

We don't have any reproductive rights except for giving consent to sex.

Ever heard of a woman raping a man? Maybe.
Ever heard of a man winning a lawsuit for being raped by a woman? Unlikely.

You can't rape a man because he ALWAYS wants it. In ANY situation. No exceptions.
[/feminist]

really, well if some 80 year old 500 lb woman came trumping around the corner and decided to hump you, you'd get an erection do you know why? because an erection is caused by blood flow to the penis making it enlarge, whch can be caused by excitement, or by stimulating the blood cells by rubbing, during puberty the male can get erections spontaneously and without reason, the same thing can happen to a sex-deprived man, so that 80 year odl woman whos 500 lbs humping you gives you an erection due to stimulation and /or irritation of the blood cells, does that mean the man wants it?

[DaWoad]

Ever heard of a woman raping a man? Maybe.
Ever heard of a man winning a lawsuit for being raped by a woman? Unlikely.

You can't rape a man because he ALWAYS wants it. In ANY situation. No exceptions.
[/feminist]

really, well if some 80 year old 500 lb woman came trumping around the corner and decided to hump you, you'd get an erection do you know why? because an erection is caused by blood flow to the penis making it enlarge, whch can be caused by excitement, or by stimulating the blood cells by rubbing, during puberty the male can get erections spontaneously and without reason, the same thing can happen to a sex-deprived man, so that 80 year odl woman whos 500 lbs humping you gives you an erection due to stimulation and /or irritation of the blood cells, does that mean the man wants it?

don't feed the troll.

[Euronion]

one problem, men are not biologically structured to carry a child, we don't have the right hormones, we don't have any way to give the child nutrition so basically hte child would just die, lets just get down to the center of the arguement, does a man get a choice as to whether his son or daughter gets assassinated or not?

Hormones don't enter into it. Female reproductive hormones deal with ovulation and the uterus, not the actual development of the baby itself. And yes, the baby would get enough nutrients; implantation can occur almost anywhere in the upper female reproductive tract naturally, (And other places in rarer instances) and the placenta will grow into existing blood supplies. In fact, an ectopic pregnancy is exactly what a male pregnancy would be; except instead of commonly occurring in the fallopian tubes, it would be in the abdominal cavity.

no there are hormones that dictate the skin to stretch, there are hormones that screen out harmful chemicals to the baby, there are hormones for every function of the body, including hunger, and thirst, not to mention the bodies immune system would recognize it as a foreign invader and reject it, which would probably lead to death, and the baby would die because the hormones for pregnancy hunger are not present

[Old Koridai]

You're a troll. And a bad one at that.

How did you guess? My obvious sarcastic comment, the ridiculous tags or my idioticly grinning avatar?

[DaWoad]

one problem, men are not biologically structured to carry a child, we don't have the right hormones, we don't have any way to give the child nutrition so basically hte child would just die, lets just get down to the center of the arguement, does a man get a choice as to whether his son or daughter gets assassinated or not?

Hormones don't enter into it. Female reproductive hormones deal with ovulation and the uterus, not the actual development of the baby itself.

not sure that's true. Didn't phalidomide do the damamge it did because it changed around the hormones essential to development in the fetus? Some other developmental disorders are also hormonally based IIRC (cretinism, the lack of iodine leading to insufficient thyroid hormones)

that said, artificial hormones and problem solved.

And yes, the baby would get enough nutrients; implantation can occur almost anywhere in the upper female reproductive tract naturally, (And other places in rarer instances) and the placenta will grow into existing blood supplies. In fact, an ectopic pregnancy is exactly what a male pregnancy would be; except instead of commonly occurring in the fallopian tubes, it would be in the abdominal cavity.

and, this. In fact there are a couple of cases where fetuses have grown to near-viability and, I think, even been delivered having grown on an abdominal wall/wall of the intestines in a woman.

[Euronion]

Don't feed the troll

oh sorry, didn't see the sign

[Hathradic States]

The two are not alike. Rape is rape, and wrong no matter who the fuck you are. (of course, the rapist argues against that, but what does the opinion of scum matter?). When I speak of "reproductive rights" I am speaking of when the child is consensual, as would most people. A child of rape is a different animal alltogether (yet my stance on abortion is not changed)

is slavery wrong?

In most cases. However, I find it to be a good punishment for criminals, such as slave-traders and rapist.

[Shadow25]

is slavery wrong?

In most cases. However, I find it to be a good punishment for criminals, such as slave-traders and rapist.

are you serious?

[DaWoad]

is slavery wrong?

In most cases. However, I find it to be a good punishment for criminals, such as slave-traders and rapist.

in that case replace rape with slavery. in your quote above and see the similarities.

[DaWoad]

Don't feed the troll

oh sorry, didn't see the sign

heh no problem.

[Old Koridai]

In most cases. However, I find it to be a good punishment for criminals, such as slave-traders and rapist.

are you serious?

Why not? I love ironic punishment.

[Hathradic States]

In most cases. However, I find it to be a good punishment for criminals, such as slave-traders and rapist.

in that case replace rape with slavery. in your quote above and see the similarities.

Hmmmm...

The two are not alike. Slavery is slavery, and wrong no matter who the fuck you are. (of course, the slaver argues against that, but what does the opinion of scum matter?). When I speak of "reproductive rights" I am speaking of when the child is consensual, as would most people. A child of slavery is a different animal alltogether (yet my stance on abortion is not changed)

I am not quite getting the point.

Though I liked replacing "rape" for "slavery" in the other quote. What better punishment for a rapist that to have him/her raped?