The Right to Self-Rule?

[Rawedge Rim]

I don't think I could be much clearer on my position and why I think it is right for resolution to this issue. Women know what it is to be a woman. They know the weight of this responsibility and are our PEERS in truth, who better to pass judgement, make declarations upon women citizen's?

I believe that an ecclectic, broadbased group of women from all walks and professions should make decisions on the legality the morality and the environmental causes and effects, that surround this complex issue.
An all girl UN as it were...rainbows, ponies, and circular thingys.

Yeah, I see how that leaves something to be desired for 'equality'.
...sigh.., never-the-less I believe it is just and fair...
...consider that men have had a monopoly on war-councils, legislation, religious leadership and court judgments, throughout history and currently. The numbers are still abismally disparaging for the women of this country, fully capable of doing these jobs and making these decisions equally as well as men.

This has been done with OPEN EXCLUSION of women for centuries.
By example male people have taught women people to think autonomy is one process we could use.
No denial of this can be made.
What else, besides our demand for the right to rule ourselves, do you expect?

Tell us why we should welcome the authority of a group, individual or legislator...that has no means of experiencing or knowing what it means to be a mother/woman? Tell us, what criteria will men use to come their conclusions? Who will be the benefactor of your conclusion...who will will be the backbone, the one who makes it happen?

We can die in combat, just like men. We can be a scientists, professors, lawyers, math-wizards, leaders of the free world or have any number of other universal experiences as a man would. Anything you can do we can do... save one thing.
Women can't biologically impregnate a woman, true, so we do not try to legislate that....hmmmm

Instead of trying to get women to justify why we don't need male influence (on the issue of reproductive/women's rights)...tell me why we do.
What can you bring to this table?
A scientific perspective...perhaps.
It is dangerous ground. And we have miles to go before we sleep.

How can men as a whole convince any women that they can even so much as intellectually experience life as a woman?
Transcendental meditation...maybe?

These would be debates worth attending.

So how far back you planning on going to bring up female suffrage?

Compared to 1920, or 1820, or 1720, or 20 AD, woman have enumerable opportunities. In the US at least, there is no law limiting what a woman can do vrs. what a man can do (with the exception of direct combat, and that one is pretty much paper thin at this point)

This is no longer a time when women could not vote, attend school, hold property in thier own name, drive, etc.

Now, as a realist, I know that it's gonna take a while for men and women to, as a culture, to catch up to the law, but it is happening.

Women are now catching up to men in committing violent crime, incidents of lung cancer, drug use, combat death, etc.

We had a serious woman candidate for President, and women have been serving in high office now for decades.

In many christian sects, women hold very high positions, including Bishops in the non-catholic sects.

OTOH, women who give up jobs and or careers to stay at home and raise children are not scorned by society, while men who do so recieve massive scorn and disdain. Women automatically are considered the "best" persons to raise children in a custody battle, regardless of character.

I could go on and on, but the point is, that in this modern society, the barriers that once existed for women either have been removed, or are so paper thin at this point to be pointless. Time, and only a little of that is needed, will erase those last cultural only vestiges.

[Earthwalker]

Can you please quote me the part of the Constitution that says anything about "women and children first"? I was under the impression that it was about equal treatment and equal opportunity, not preference.

That was a quip...just a little salty history for you young'uns.

As far as reproduction, what rights men have? I guess like mother's rights, it's relative to the energy and committment one has for the 'cause'. To be taken seriously one must have...something to back up the request/argument, something tangible, with support data to back that up.

What are the points or issues of suffrage for men on the subject of reproductive rights? Cail...you are intriguing...but what's the answer?

What rights should men have...it is a fascinating question.
What numbers would your analyists use? The data we have hardly seems on the side of males/fathers, as a whole at the moment.
Men seem to care much more about planting the seed... than they seem committed to the cultivation of life

What would the parameters, for discovering the answer to that question be?
Should men that haven't produced yet, have a voice?
---The theory of 'family friendly influence' in your community even when you don't have, or you choose not to have children of your own, is as old as dirt..."it takes a village"...Hill-Dog didn't just make that one up---
Or does that matter, you can so therefore...?
Should the quality of your offspring be used to judge you?
Should the time you log, actually 'fathering' count or not?
Should you level of employment and/or the taxes you pay be part of deciding? Hmmm....interesting.

Will the criteria for decyphering father-mens rights be as open (liberal) as, say...my philosophy? Or conservative in nature? Will the circle be wide or constricted?
What would the measure of father-men be?

I think the measure of a man is his committment to his children's safety, opportunities, and knowledge.

I believe all men are Father's in Spirit. This is also true of women and motherhood.
That's all men, even those without children, they have many avenues to mentor guide, influence, and secure children in their own communities and beyond and an obligation to do so.

[Earthwalker]

Excuse me... but I am not the one that misquoted the number of years with callousness. "...had the right to vote for a 150 years or so..."
I know it's women's rights, 150 or more years or 88 years, who cares...right? That is the the impression your answer/response gives.
If anyone else on this thread were to strech numbers or misquote something...you are on it, and on the poor unfortunate
fool that said whatever it was to begin with.
This is true, and you know it.

RR it's like this.

If you don't know the past, you can't know the future.

Whenever the is a difference of opinion, a configuration in which there are and have always been, the powerful and the powerless.
The powerful by and large don't feel much of anything about the imbalance.
They become accustomed to experiencing the power to their benefit in ways that seem painless.
It's in the air they breathe and the water they drink.

The powerless, see the inequity quite differently. History shows us, no matter how much prodding comes from the
powerless and disenfranchised, those in power are not inclined toward introspection or remorse.
Examine our own history, to see clearly how dangerous it can be and how long it can take to simply get acknowledgment of the inequities in society.

[Cail]

As far as reproduction, what rights men have? I guess like mother's rights, it's relative to the energy and committment one has for the 'cause'. To be taken seriously one must have...something to back up the request/argument, something tangible, with support data to back that up.

To be taken seriously by whom? And why do you think there should be any difference between father's rights and mother's rights? I was under the impression that the law was supposed to treat everyone equally. Wasn't that what the women's movement was about?

What are the points or issues of suffrage for men on the subject of reproductive rights? Cail...you are intriguing...but what's the answer?

I'm still waiting for the question. What are reproductive rights?

What rights should men have...it is a fascinating question.
What numbers would your analyists use? The data we have hardly seems on the side of males/fathers, as a whole at the moment.

Numbers? I don't follow. Again, I thought everyone was supposed to be treated the same under the law (14th Amendment and all).

Men seem to care much more about planting the seed... than they seem committed to the cultivation of life

Could you point me to the study that found that to be the case?

What would the parameters, for discovering the answer to that question be?
Should men that haven't produced yet, have a voice?
---The theory of 'family friendly influence' in your community even when you don't have, or you choose not to have children of your own, is as old as dirt..."it takes a village"...Hill-Dog didn't just make that one up---
Or does that matter, you can so therefore...?
Should the quality of your offspring be used to judge you?
Should the time you log, actually 'fathering' count or not?
Should you level of employment and/or the taxes you pay be part of deciding? Hmmm....interesting.

These criteria are massively offensive. Should women/mothers be judged the same way?

What would the measure of father-men be?

Why would they be measured differently than anyone else?

I think the measure of a man is his committment to his children's safety, opportunities, and knowledge.

So I guess infertile men are inferior? Are infertile women (or women who chose not to be mothers) inferior as well?

I'm guessing by the tone of your posts that you'd be furious if a man tried to judge or define you by the criteria you're using here. I'm curious as why you believe it's OK for you to do so?

[Rawedge Rim]

Excuse me... but I am not the one that misquoted the number of years with callousness. "...had the right to vote for a 150 years or so..."
I know it's women's rights, 150 or more years or 88 years, who cares...right? That is the the impression your answer/response gives.
If anyone else on this thread were to strech numbers or misquote something...you are on it, and on the poor unfortunate
fool that said whatever it was to begin with.
This is true, and you know it.

RR it's like this.

If you don't know the past, you can't know the future.

Whenever the is a difference of opinion, a configuration in which there are and have always been, the powerful and the powerless.
The powerful by and large don't feel much of anything about the imbalance.
They become accustomed to experiencing the power to their benefit in ways that seem painless.
It's in the air they breathe and the water they drink.

The powerless, see the inequity quite differently. History shows us, no matter how much prodding comes from the
powerless and disenfranchised, those in power are not inclined toward introspection or remorse.
Examine our own history, to see clearly how dangerous it can be and how long it can take to simply get acknowledgment of the inequities in society.

I am reminded of the story of the two buddhist monks, who were walking along and came to a river that was running a bit high because of the season. There on the bank was a woman who begged for thier help in getting accross "I'm afraid that the water is too swift and deep for me to make it". Now the monks were forbidden to have any contact with women. The younger looked away and ignored the woman, but the older monk hoisted the woman onto his back and carried her across the river, sat her down and the two monks went on thier way. For sever hours there was tension between the two monks, and finally the younger one could stand it no long, and began to castigate the older monk "You know that we are not allowed to touch women, yet against all our principles, you carried that woman accross, you are a terrible monk"

The older monk replied "What? I put that woman down hours ago. Why are you still carrying her?"


This is the impression I'm getting from you. I'm not sure how old you are, and frankly, as Rhett Butler would say "I don't give a damn". If you continue to carry around millenium of bad feelings about how women were treated, you are doomed to a life of misery.

Times are changing, and have changed, and will continue to change. Woman are beginning to participate in all levels of society that they wish to, some want jobs as business and political leaders, combat officers, etc. Others just want to stay home and take care of the house. My own fiance wants just that, to quit work and be taken care of. So is this a step in the wrong direction, or are you going to be one of those who look down on women who don't want to participate in the so called feminist movement?

[Earthwalker]

A response in order follows:

A) "Taken seriously by whom?" Legislators and power play law makers, religious influencers (if that's possible). Or anyone interested in supporting a cause like gaining inalienable rights. Or anyone that feels disenfranchised and looking for a chance to speak up.

B) "What are reproductive right's?" Currently, legally? A woman's reporoductive right's, the right to choose? Roe v Wade is the obvious. or do you mean...in theory? You posed the question on what are men's reproductive right's, not me. I have no simple thoughts on that one right now...but I do have time.

C) "Numbers? I don't follow. Again, I thought everyone was supposed to be treated the same under the law (14th Amendment and all)"
That sir is the montra of the disenfranchised not the unaffected. And the motivaton for past and current battles for freedom.

D) "Could you point me to the study that found that to be the case?"
Do the current statistics of 50% of all marriages in the US ending in divorce, or that single mothers are eclipsing 50 percent of all births to women under the age of 30 in 2006...do these numbers help? Add on the 1.4 million abortions preformed each year, and the 1.2 million put up for adoption each year...I don't know...maybe I am making this stuff up, huh.

E) "These criteria are massively offensive. Should women/mothers be judged the same way?"
I say to you, Are we not, have we not always been judged by those standards and then some? In truth Women have been judged, as I have said before, on the fact that they menstrate. Pathetic.

F) "Why would they be measured differently than anyone else?"
Have men not always been judged differently than women? Have they not always sat in the trones of princes and principalities, while deciding the fates of women and children...the underlings? Perhaps I am living in a different world than you?

G) "So I guess infertile men are inferior? Are infertile women (or women who chose not to be mothers) inferior as well?"

Earthwalker wrote:
I think the measure of a man is his committment to his children's safety, opportunities, and knowledge.

Earthwalker also wrote, but it was left out:
I believe all men are Father's in Spirit. This is also true of women and motherhood.
That's all men, even those without children, they have many avenues to mentor guide, influence, and secure children in their own communities and beyond and an obligation to do so.

Even those men and women infertile or without children by choice are invaluable resources.
Cail...you're playing dirty pool and soooo not trying to walk a mile in any womans shoes.

I'm guessing by the tone of your posts that you'd be furious if a man tried to judge or define you by the criteria you're using here. I'm curious as why you believe it's OK for you to do so?

My tone is one of seriousness...most of the time... a tone of critical thinking, not serious anger or defamatory speech...most of the time...RR & Malik do get to me sometimes. (sigh)...A flaw in my character.

It is certainly not ok for me to do such a thing to someone without warrent. BTW it was the ponderings of a woman in thinking mode not judgement...just questions, speculations on what the criteria might be in the fair and balanced male perspective.

[Earthwalker]

RR..., so your opposed to me using history, facts, because it poisons my real chances of being...other than miserable?

...you think times are a'changin, and I should not stir the pot? I should try a little patience a wait for...my life to pass by without freedom backed up by practical application?

...FYI, I have 8 children, of my own, I birthed 'em all. I am a definate believer in women staying at home with their children.

I believe modern society has floundered since women were forced by economics to join the workforce in mass quantities. Apply a large portion of American crime statistics here:
YES it is true I have the heart of a conservative, but the objective perpectives and principles of a Liberal.

No conscience woman is outside of the feminist movement and neither is she a useless warrior if her heart follows a different path. The Unfettered.
The truly BRAVE that stay at home and raise children should ALL recieve the purple heart.
To trade in pen, sword, popularity, power, praise, dignity and peace for barf, poop, crayon portraits on the wall and kisses...is without measure and priceless. The highest order of sacrifice for...? the blessings of the unknown and the frightening role of 'all things great and small'.

[Plissken]

As far as reproduction, what rights men have? I guess like mother's rights, it's relative to the energy and committment one has for the 'cause'. To be taken seriously one must have...something to back up the request/argument, something tangible, with support data to back that up.

To have rights in the reproductive process, men need to provide data showing that - what exactly? That they deserve it? (As for the commitment thing... It would be unmoderatorly of me to respond with what I'm thinking.)

What rights should men have...it is a fascinating question.
What numbers would your analyists use? The data we have hardly seems on the side of males/fathers, as a whole at the moment.
Men seem to care much more about planting the seed... than they seem committed to the cultivation of life

Why is it a fascinating question? It seems fairly straight forward - (corresponding) rights that are equal to those of women. Choice, for one. As for the rest of this bit, I'm going to say this as concisely as I can: We aren't children that need to prove our worthiness in some way in order to be given rights. We're adults, we're citizens...

Look, let's try this:

What rights should women have...it is a fascinating question.
What numbers would your analyists use? The data we have hardly seems on the side of females/mothers, as a whole at the moment.
Women seem to care much more about recieving the seed... than they seem committed to the cultivation of life

What would the parameters, for discovering the answer to that question be?

Should women that haven't produced yet, have a voice?

[...]

Or does that matter, you can so therefore...?
Should the quality of your offspring be used to judge women?
Should the time you log, actually 'mothering' count or not?
Should you level of employment and/or the taxes you pay be part of deciding? Hmmm....interesting.

Will the criteria for decyphering mother/womans rights be as open (liberal) as, say...my philosophy? Or conservative in nature? Will the circle be wide or constricted?
What would the measure of mother/women be?

Does any of that ring ridiculous or offensive to you?

[Avatar]

B) "What are reproductive right's?" Currently, legally?

No, I think what Cail is asking is twofold. First, if woman must have reproductive rights, and the law states that everybody is equal before it, then shouldn't men be entitled to reproductive rights as well?

Second, if men have reproductive rights, (not legally, but ethically and morally), then what reproductive rights do you think they should have?

As has been pointed out, men are a part of the reproductive process as well.

--A

[Cail]

B) "What are reproductive right's?" Currently, legally?

No, I think what Cail is asking is twofold. First, if woman must have reproductive rights, and the law states that everybody is equal before it, then shouldn't men be entitled to reproductive rights as well?

Second, if men have reproductive rights, (not legally, but ethically and morally), then what reproductive rights do you think they should have?

As has been pointed out, men are a part of the reproductive process as well.

Yes, exactly.

Earthwalker, to be blunt, the majority of your post seems like sour grapes over past injustices. The world and the law have changed. I'm just curious as to why you feel that it's acceptable to treat men the same way you're accusing men of treating women, and looking for preferential treatment rather than equality.

[Rawedge Rim]

RR..., so your opposed to me using history, facts, because it poisons my real chances of being...other than miserable?

...you think times are a'changin, and I should not stir the pot? I should try a little patience a wait for...my life to pass by without freedom backed up by practical application?

...FYI, I have 8 children, of my own, I birthed 'em all. I am a definate believer in women staying at home with their children.

I believe modern society has floundered since women were forced by economics to join the workforce in mass quantities. Apply a large portion of American crime statistics here:
YES it is true I have the heart of a conservative, but the objective perpectives and principles of a Liberal.

No conscience woman is outside of the feminist movement and neither is she a useless warrior if her heart follows a different path. The Unfettered.
The truly BRAVE that stay at home and raise children should ALL recieve the purple heart.
To trade in pen, sword, popularity, power, praise, dignity and peace for barf, poop, crayon portraits on the wall and kisses...is without measure and priceless. The highest order of sacrifice for...? the blessings of the unknown and the frightening role of 'all things great and small'.

One should keep history in mind at all times, and take the lessons of history......however, one should not let history be a blinder that keeps one from seeing what is, and what is coming. History is great for perspective. A teenager feels that a year of time is basically forever, while at my age, I feel like I could take a nap for that long and not notice the time.

Feel free to look at history, but look at all the history, and how things have evolved within that history.

[Earthwalker]

Plissken responds:

To have rights in the reproductive process, men need to provide data showing that - what exactly? That they deserve it? (As for the commitment thing... It would be unmoderatorly of me to respond with what I'm thinking.)

That you have enough control to only hint at what you would say...why plissken, you are a paragon of virtue
Well turnabout is fair play...and I am but a lowly pleeb, so neither will I say that you are fair and a good listener, and I will not comment on your anger issues either...k pumpkin?

I think there is a mis-understanding on this one or two sentences I wrote. But then again perhaps it is just customary to bring your broadsword to a debate?
Either way let me take a minute to explain....after that hmmm...we'll see. I think there are several other comments on my 'thinking processes' that I might have to defend. (sad tho this is suppose to be...fun, maybe thought provoking...but it's more like a cock-fight really)

The point I was making is actually a redundent one, a stupid summary of already known info that goes like this:
One of our swordsmen, made a comment to the effect of; why should women have an exclusive on reproductive rights? What about men's rights? Fair enough and I said "The subject is fascinating to me"
...I really meant that, not in a nasty, snarky way but in truly curious way. As in, I like your thought process Cail...now extrapillate.
But instead the battle cry was "off with her head!"
I never did get to hear what he was thinking on the issue, imagine that.

My stupid point was that if you wish to have a ruling body pass a law on drunk driving, for instance.
You gotta have your cause or reason, a supporting statement on where your organization is and where it wants to take this idea, and supporting data, stats, facts to back that up and show the realities. (ie, 400,00 people are killed each year in drunken driving accidents...so we should harden the laws on this crime because it kills people.) ...duh

You know like women had to do at the turn of the century, along with other mal-treatments they suffered (that I won't get into at the risk of seeming hardline and man-hating), to get Congress to ratify their legislation on LEGAL equality.
What is insulting about that? Is introspection that difficult?

I am struggling to see what was wrong with that sentence(s)? Or how anyone could decipher my personal baggage, anger, misery or sour grapes issues? in those few words.
Did you think I wanted you to justify it to me? Why would you think that, if that is the case?....who the f*ck am I that someone should have to justify themselves to me?!!? seriously.

Seems no matter what I say it is food for fodder. Swill, pig slop.
What inspires you to stop someone from participating in an amazing thread....with evisceraton and head splitting?
I was just inspiringly passionate about this thought when I began.
Now I am angry. Quote that.

You don't really want to talk about it, you want to fight about it.
This is why I say it's a woman's issue, and men don't want to , and should not belong to anything that debates the further liberation women....we have apparently been given all the right's we needed and have just failed to do anything worthwhile with them..

I thought I could hear a good argument on or for men's or women's reproductive rights...what I saw was a blood bath.
Aaarrrggghhhh....I am simply not gonna be allowed to discuss this issue with any seriousness or curiosity or as myself.
To hell with the rest of the insults in these posts on me that I thought to respond to....keep it.

The title of this thread should be:
THE RIGHT TO SELF RULE?....OF COURSE.... IF YOU HAVE A PENIS.

* sorry to those that don't deserve it, for my part in being rude, but I am really pissed. *

[Rawedge Rim]

I believe that an ecclectic, broadbased group of women from all walks and professions should make decisions on the legality the morality and the environmental causes and effects, that surround this complex issue.
An all girl UN as it were...rainbows, ponies, and circular thingys.

Yeah, I see how that leaves something to be desired for 'equality'.
...sigh.., never-the-less I believe it is just and fair...
...consider that men have had a monopoly on war-councils, legislation, religious leadership and court judgments, throughout history and currently. The numbers are still abismally disparaging for the women of this country, fully capable of doing these jobs and making these decisions equally as well as men.

This has been done with OPEN EXCLUSION of women for centuries.
By example male people have taught women people to think autonomy is one process we could use.
No denial of this can be made.
What else, besides our demand for the right to rule ourselves, do you expect?

Tell us why we should welcome the authority of a group, individual or legislator...that has no means of experiencing or knowing what it means to be a mother/woman? Tell us, what criteria will men use to come their conclusions? Who will be the benefactor of your conclusion...who will will be the backbone, the one who makes it happen?

We can die in combat, just like men. We can be a scientists, professors, lawyers, math-wizards, leaders of the free world or have any number of other universal experiences as a man would. Anything you can do we can do... save one thing.
Women can't biologically impregnate a woman, true, so we do not try to legislate that....hmmmm

Instead of trying to get women to justify why we don't need male influence (on the issue of reproductive/women's rights)...tell me why we do.
What can you bring to this table?
A scientific perspective...perhaps.
It is dangerous ground. And we have miles to go before we sleep.

How can men as a whole convince any women that they can even so much as intellectually experience life as a woman?
Transcendental meditation...maybe?

These would be debates worth attending.

I think there is a mis-understanding on this one or two sentences I wrote. But then again perhaps it is just customary to bring your broadsword to a debate?
Either way let me take a minute to explain....after that hmmm...we'll see. I think there are several other comments on my 'thinking processes' that I might have to defend. (sad tho this is suppose to be...fun, maybe thought provoking...but it's more like a cock-fight really)

The point I was making is actually a redundent one, a stupid summary of already known info that goes like this:
One of our swordsmen, made a comment to the effect of; why should women have an exclusive on reproductive rights? What about men's rights? Fair enough and I said "The subject is fascinating to me"
...I really meant that, not in a nasty, snarky way but in truly curious way. As in, I like your thought process Cail...now extrapillate.
But instead the battle cry was "off with her head!"
I never did get to hear what he was thinking on the issue, imagine that.

My stupid point was that if you wish to have a ruling body pass a law on drunk driving, for instance.
You gotta have your cause or reason, a supporting statement on where your organization is and where it wants to take this idea, and supporting data, stats, facts to back that up and show the realities. (ie, 400,00 people are killed each year in drunken driving accidents...so we should harden the laws on this crime because it kills people.) ...duh

You know like women had to do at the turn of the century, along with other mal-treatments they suffered (that I won't get into at the risk of seeming hardline and man-hating), to get Congress to ratify their legislation on LEGAL equality.
What is insulting about that? Is introspection that difficult?

Perhaps if you read the above comments from a nuetral position, you might see where several of us here do find the comments "snarky".

But let's try a bit of reason;

The societal position that women held for millenium was due to several factors, and not all from a desire for male domination (though it certainly played a role)

During the "Hunter\Gatherer" stage of humanity, men were physically more capable of the "hunt" (hand to eye coordination, extra oxygen processing, greater musculature, etc.) Of course these same traits were also good for physically enforcing dominance, which is common in primitive societies. No conspiracy here, just human nature, women form thier own strick pecking order amoung themselves.

As humans progress from Hunter\Gather to agrarian, much still held true, men were still for the most part bigger and stronger than women, and were required by necessity and culture to perform those physically demanding tasks that were for the most part beyond women.

When you get right down to it, until humans went from a most agrarian lifestyle to a serve and manufacturing culture, there simply weren't that many jobs other than wife\housekeeper for women.

As for "men's" near monopoly on war, again, physically men are more capable, especially in a non-mechanized enviroment, of conducting war. Had there been a significant advantage in having women on the battlefield with men, it would have been done much more often than history suggests. This is certainly true when the average infrantryman doubled as a packmule.

Another issue of course is reproduction. As you noted, only women can bear children, and this act of course is seriously time and energy intensive. The loss of a relatively small amount of child bearing females in a group can spell the end of that group, while the loss of a relatively large amount of males can be overcome (one male can fertilize several women, but the reverse isn't possible )

Be that as it may, the societal position of men and women seems to have been pretty standard regardless of historical or geographical position. This evolved this way, because for the last several tens of thousands of years......it worked. Period.

Now in the last 150 years or so, we, as a species, at least in the short term, have moved from a hunter\gatherer to an agrarian, to now a manufacturing and service society, where the physical advantages enjoyed by men are much less, if any a factor, and where the physical advantages of women are becoming more important (a brain constructed for easier multitasking, communication, etc.)

So culture is changing, and will continue to evolve, long after anyone here is pushing up daiseys.

Now we come to the question....."Why should men or women have an exclusive on reproductive rights?"

Well, in this day and age, it certainly isn't because we need more people to keep the human race around. So we have to look to social justice for an answer.

For now, as much as I hate to say it, women should have the greater weight in reproductive rights than men, simply because in the end, regardless of anything else, they get stuck with the consequences.


Don't mistake the above statement as support for abortion, it's not. I give the same answer to that as a judge would give me if, as a man, if I said I didn't want the responsibility for a child "you should have thought about that before you had sexual intercourse."

[Avatar]

Easy on there, it's not as bad as you think it is. And it certainly isn't a blood-bath, nor is anybody after your head. But you still haven't said whether or not you think men should have equal reproductive rights. You might be interested in
Cail's thoughts on the matter, but he is interested in yours.

As for a justification for men having those rights, (which is what you seem to be asking for, but feel free to correct me), well, I think that the fact that they are part of the reproductive process is sufficient justification.

Nobody is trying to keep anybody out of the discussion. On the contrary, they want you to explain your position more clearly, or so it seems to me. Misunderstandings are frequent as you point out, and only by question and clarification can we overcome them. And if sarcasm appears to have reared it's head, I think I can fairly say that it hasn't been one-sided.

So rather than allowing our anger to get the better of us, lets explore the questions raised, and reply to the inaccuracies, with the same tolerance and consideration we would like to be shown to our own viewpoints.

--A

[Cail]

The point I was making is actually a redundent one, a stupid summary of already known info that goes like this:
One of our swordsmen, made a comment to the effect of; why should women have an exclusive on reproductive rights? What about men's rights? Fair enough and I said "The subject is fascinating to me"
...I really meant that, not in a nasty, snarky way but in truly curious way. As in, I like your thought process Cail...now extrapillate.
But instead the battle cry was "off with her head!"
I never did get to hear what he was thinking on the issue, imagine that.

Firsto of all, if you're going to play the victim card, you might want to stop with the namecalling. Secondly, you might want to pay attention to the conversation. You asked the question, then I asked you what you meant by "reproductive rights" (you've not answered). I've also mentioned that you seem to be ignoring the fact that according the the US Constitution, you and I are guaranteed equal treatment under the law (something else you've ignored). So I'll ask again: what do you consider 'reproductive rights', and doesn't everyone deserve the same rights?

No one has said anything about, "off with her head". Quite the contrary, we're all shaking our heads because you're not answering any of our questions.

My stupid point was that if you wish to have a ruling body pass a law on drunk driving, for instance.
You gotta have your cause or reason, a supporting statement on where your organization is and where it wants to take this idea, and supporting data, stats, facts to back that up and show the realities. (ie, 400,00 people are killed each year in drunken driving accidents...so we should harden the laws on this crime because it kills people.) ...duh

For someone who jumped all over another poster for being a few years off on women's right to vote, you might want to get your numbers straight. Less that 17,000 drunk driving deaths in 2005.

But we weren't talking about drunk driving, we were talking about abortion, and there were a ton of statistics that I'd posted in that thread. So I asked you what numbers you wanted. You responded that the Constitution was....."the montra of the disenfranchised not the unaffected. And the motivaton for past and current battles for freedom.". So I'll ask again, other than the 1.3 million children being aborted (killed), what else would you like?

You know like women had to do at the turn of the century, along with other mal-treatments they suffered (that I won't get into at the risk of seeming hardline and man-hating), to get Congress to ratify their legislation on LEGAL equality.
What is insulting about that? Is introspection that difficult?

I have no idea what you're talking about here, but I'll remind you that no one in this discussion had a thing to do with whether or not women got the right to vote in 1920.

I am struggling to see what was wrong with that sentence(s)? Or how anyone could decipher my personal baggage, anger, misery or sour grapes issues? in those few words.
Did you think I wanted you to justify it to me? Why would you think that, if that is the case?....who the f*ck am I that someone should have to justify themselves to me?!!? seriously.

No one is going to justify anything to you. However you have walked in here telling everyone that men shouldn't enjoy equal rights with women. You've called us names. You've implied that we're all sexist and dense.

An all we've done is tried to pin down your opinion and figure out where you're coming from. If you really believe what you're saying, then convince us you're right without the insults and the hyperbole.

You don't really want to talk about it, you want to fight about it.
This is why I say it's a woman's issue, and men don't want to , and should not belong to anything that debates the further liberation women....we have apparently been given all the right's we needed and have just failed to do anything worthwhile with them..

I thought I could hear a good argument on or for men's or women's reproductive rights...what I saw was a blood bath.
Aaarrrggghhhh....I am simply not gonna be allowed to discuss this issue with any seriousness or curiosity or as myself.
To hell with the rest of the insults in these posts on me that I thought to respond to....keep it.

The title of this thread should be:
THE RIGHT TO SELF RULE?....OF COURSE.... IF YOU HAVE A PENIS.

You've once again gone out on a limb with the hyperbole, and you've avoided supporting your position at all. If you want to play the victim and slip into the very stereotypical behavior that you're apparently unhappy with, be my guest. If you want to have a reasonable conversation, you're more than welcome to. But you're going to have to start from the beginning and explain why something that intimately affects both men and women is only a woman's issue.

[Plissken]

Alright, clean slate: Why should something that effects both groups be the decision-making province of only one group?

[Holsety]

It seems, in this and abortion thread, that that question has been asked more than once. Or in a different light, do those who support abortion support a man not having to pay a single dime if he doesn't want the child. I don't remember an answer. Did I miss it? Well, I do remember some of the men here answering, in the affirmative. I am curious about a woman's response, one that supports abortion. Does the man have to pay if he doesn't want to? (altho Earthwalker, I guess you wouldn't answer, b/c its a man's issue (no pun intended))

BTW I'm a man, I support "right to choose," and as a man you're an idiot if you think you should be able to "walk away."

If you want to avoid child support, you have two 100% options. Vasectomy. Celibacy. If neither appeals to you, condoms are a good option. Also, talking about things with your partner and not jumping into things is a good idea.

Unless you were raped (and I do believe women can rape men) you have no argument for not paying child support. Keep your penis in your pants if you don't want to deal with it. Yes, I know that's not an appealing answer to most men, again, just have a vasectomy. If you want to have kids someday, wait till you're married to have sex.

Ya, not a good option, doesn't appeal to me either, but I'm not going to bitch if that .1% "jackpot" happens w/ a condom on, because I'm a consenting adult and I won't whine about the consequences of my decisions. Why do women get a free "second chance" when men don't? Duh. 9 month pregnancy.

All that being said, the barriers for men to get custody of the kid should be reduced (I'm relying on the guys who have posted about this because they seem to know a lot more than I ever hope to learn ), and then moms should have to pay child support to the dads.

[Cail]

OK Holsety, so you don't believe that a man should be able to avoid his responsibility to his child, but you support a woman being able to unilaterally terminate that child so she doesn't have to be responsible for it?

If the man has to rely on either celibacy or a vasectomy, why shouldn't a woman do the same?

Edit- To jump on to Pliss's question, let me ask this. Currently, woman cannot serve in combat positions in the military. Does this mean that women should have no voice in whether or not the nation goes to war?

[Plissken]

BTW I'm a man, I support "right to choose," and as a man you're an idiot if you think you should be able to "walk away."

If you want to avoid child support, you have two 100% options. Vasectomy. Celibacy. If neither appeals to you, condoms are a good option. Also, talking about things with your partner and not jumping into things is a good idea.

Unless you were raped (and I do believe women can rape men) you have no argument for not paying child support. Keep your penis in your pants if you don't want to deal with it. Yes, I know that's not an appealing answer to most men, again, just have a vasectomy. If you want to have kids someday, wait till you're married to have sex.

Ya, not a good option, doesn't appeal to me either, but I'm not going to bitch if that .1% "jackpot" happens w/ a condom on, because I'm a consenting adult and I won't whine about the consequences of my decisions. Why do women get a free "second chance" when men don't? Duh. 9 month pregnancy.

All that being said, the barriers for men to get custody of the kid should be reduced (I'm relying on the guys who have posted about this because they seem to know a lot more than I ever hope to learn ), and then moms should have to pay child support to the dads.

Hols, the whole "keep it in your pants" argument can be (and has been) applied to the question of abortion. Assuming two fully functioning adults, how is this not a double standard unless applied to both (or neither) genders?

EDIT: Cail good example. And the answer (of course) is: "Because it effects women as well, even if they don't have their own blood, suffering, and mental well-being on the line unless they choose it."

EDIT TO THE EDIT: While I'm thinking about this equality thing, I'd like to add another to the Specious Arguments Against the Expansion Of Rights To A New Group List:

- "Look what they've done with the rights they've already got/They haven't proven themselves capable of the responsibility of the right they currently don't have (look at this spectre I've raised over here!)"

Like "It goes against nature/the natural order/God's Word" before it, this argument has been used against women, minorities, and homosexuals. It presents itself as rational, because there is observable evidence ("Look at this hellish ghetto! Can you imagine what would happen if we just let these people live/work/eat/drink/piss wherever they want?"), but blissfully ignores a principle that history has shown us quite a few times: That if you deny a right to a group, they will invariably show no responsibility for the issues concerning that right.

(Or, as Every Former Assistant Manager of Anything Anywhere knows: If you're going to bitch about the existence of a problem, you're going to have to risk giving me the power and responsibility to change it.")

[Earthwalker]

Firsto of all, if you're going to play the victim card, you might want to stop with the namecalling. Secondly, you might want to pay attention to the conversation. You asked the question, then I asked you what you meant by "reproductive rights" (you've not answered). I've also mentioned that you seem to be ignoring the fact that according the the US Constitution, you and I are guaranteed equal treatment under the law (something else you've ignored). So I'll ask again: what do you consider 'reproductive rights', and doesn't everyone deserve the same rights?

In fact, I did say that "I had no real thoughts on men's reproductive rights"....But I also stated that "I had time", to puruse the idea that is. I also said "...current rights, legally...", I wasn't 100% sure what you were asking.

Why do men need these rights? I, up the point a men or anyone can explain it, don't think men need repro. rights . it's a non-issue. Not because I am a mean man-hating viper, but because there is no REAL accountability to men and their penis' unless we drag ya onto the Maury Show for a DNA test. How many men are gonna cough up the DNA sample to see if they fathered the child some woman aborted? Zero accountability possible.

I think I have stated clearly that since the deed, dirty or not, falls on women, to produce, handle and overcome obstacles and move on with life with child, give it up for adoption or abort it. Reproductive right's are issues for the 'vaginal americans'. Right or wrong that's how I see this, for now. Can my opinion change? How good is the argument?

And as for the name calling (?, swordsman? my deepest apologies, it was a cruel remark), the victim card? Since when did being genuinely mad equate to playing the victim? men.
Who, on this site isn't snarky, snide or straight up offensive/defensive at some point or another....including you? Ever done any name calling yourself?

This is why this subject should be discussed in slippers & jammies, with a bag of Dorito's and a bag of Oreo's...of course.
We, women, could discuss this issue weekly, and keep our pores and manicures in perfect condition. girls.
Men on the other hand would soon have no one to give them the 'spa treatment' because they would have 'slayed' us all in conversation!
(side note: for those unable to see the rainbows; this is naturally a contrived and "ponied" up scenerio, not an actual occurance.)

Why so vicious about the subject...ya'll already have every right afforded to men. There is nothing you aren't allowed to do, there is no one law or governing body, or organization scrutinizing you and trying to lessen any rights men have earned in the last 200 plus years! No one calls men murderers when they get a girl pregnant and she aborts.
...what's your real beef?
Back to autonomy or the right to self rule....for women and children (born or unborn).

Could someone PLEASE tell me....what is the suffrage of men in the area of reproductive rights or the right to self rule? anyone? Where are you lacking, what are you missing, what do you need you don't already have?
I would like to be sympathetic to your plight...I just don't what that is. And no one wants to talk about what women want, have endured, or their goals.