Abortion and men...

[Toxick]

...assuming all other things remaining the same, if men were the ones that got pregnant, would abortion have long been covered by insurance or would it be treated as it is today; a point of never ending contention?

If men got pregnant, I don't think insurance or laws would be much affected, but I do think pregnancy would become a focal point for childish and overly-competitive behavior.

"Hey Stan! Look how much further my baby-bump sticks out than yours!"
"Bite me Hal, my milk-engorged titties are way bigger than yours"
Lactation fight begins as Stan squirts Hal in the face from his nipple-ooze.




Seriously though - One time, I got into a debate (argument) with a girlfriend's friend. She was a feminist gine-piece, and she thought all men were basically in an evil chauvinist cabal designed to torment and destroy wombyn-kind. During our debute, she asserted a similar argument to the above.

"If men got breast cancer, there would already be a cure for it!"

She, no ####, actually had the audacity to say this to me.



I sarcastically agreed with this, by pointing out how testicular cancer was the first form of cancer we cured.

Our debate didn't end amicably, if I remember correctly.

 

[Gilligan]

Our debate didn't end amicably, if I remember correctly.

Sorry to hear that. Some people have such thin skins, you know...

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, if all things were the same the need for abortions and birth control would be greatly reduced.

Part of the BC argument was BC was needed due to abusive husbands that didn't care if they could afford another child or not, or what the woman had to put up with trying to do her "chores" while 8 months pregnant, and taking of 3 other kids all under the age of 5, while he wasn't bringing home enough money to feed any of them.

IF all things were equal, HE wouldn't allow himself to become pregnant if it got in the way of his activities or work, or golf game.

BC would not only been acceptable much earlier on, but would have been legal from the very beginning, you know, when men made the rules that woman had to abide by.

Back then women were submissive to the men, it's just the way it was, and IF all things were the same the MAN would say, not tonight, or let me put the galoshes on first.. whereas the way it was she would just spread her legs and he would have his way, and it was his choice if he chose to use BC or not (if it was allowed).

Both BC and abortion wouldn't even be questioned, as still today, the laws of the land are predominantly made by men. You'd still get your religious folks trying to fight it, but yes I'd say not only legal, but paid for by either insurance or govt subsidy.

I love you man, no chit. And if you weren't married, I'd....well, I'd still covet your wife. But you'd be in the top ten, I swear.

 

[Larry Gude]

I love you man, no chit. And if you weren't married, I'd....well, I'd still covet your wife. But you'd be in the top ten, I swear.

What bob, in all his glorious top ten near perfection, is leaving out, is one of the major historical goals of a given religion is the overall well being of a given group of people and in a world where numbers counted for everything, the very natural idea of having kids served the larger purposes. Catholicism wasn't against birth control so men could control women. It was against it because the society needed bodies.

Biology is destiny and men are driven to sow seed and woman are driven to bare children. At the end of the day, it is our ONLY real purpose. Education and Westernization have changed all of that so that, on paper, our modern pursuits self realization and self satisfaction are trending us towards natural self extinction where our best and brightest, like bob, have less and less kids while the teeming masses of lesser beings just keep popping them out.

Far from any grand male plot of actually thinking through how to keep women down so as to keep them barefoot, pregnant and away from the remote, discouraging birth control is species survival in it's simplest form not to mention the abject barbarism of abortion. The need is real in a survival sense and the instinct is hard wired.

If men were to be the baby bearers, instead of arguing we'd have no debate over who gets to decide about birth control, which we wouldn't, I would argue were a man to get pregnant, carry him or her for 9 months and bare a child what we'd really have is...

...less violence and less war, male dominated activities that also serve the base purpose; survival. That was the underlying reality when we first started killing each other with sticks and it's been the purpose ever since right up to today.

So, while it is interesting to consider modern feminism and the idiotic claim that men use sex as planned, thought out violence towards women with the goal of dominating y'all because we're just mean and sadistic, the truth is, as usual, a good bit more benign and boring; we ain't smart enough to out think biology. We're little two legged human combines and y'all are vast fields in need of planting.

Except, of course, bob.

 

[BOP]

If men got pregnant, I don't think insurance or laws would be much affected, but I do think pregnancy would become a focal point for childish and overly-competitive behavior.

"Hey Stan! Look how much further my baby-bump sticks out than yours!"
"Bite me Hal, my milk-engorged titties are way bigger than yours"
Lactation fight begins as Stan squirts Hal in the face from his nipple-ooze.




Seriously though - One time, I got into a debate (argument) with a girlfriend's friend. She was a feminist gine-piece, and she thought all men were basically in an evil chauvinist cabal designed to torment and destroy wombyn-kind. During our debute, she asserted a similar argument to the above.

"If men got breast cancer, there would already be a cure for it!"

She, no ####, actually had the audacity to say this to me.



I sarcastically agreed with this, by pointing out how testicular cancer was the first form of cancer we cured.

Our debate didn't end amicably, if I remember correctly.

Liberals have issues concerning little things called "facts."

 

[Merlin99]

Liberals have issues concerning little things called "facts."

One of the major ones being that men do get breast cancer.

 

[Railroad]

This is like so out there that it's hard to grasp at first. But I'm just strange enough to get what the argument is trying to be. I prevented myself from making babies after helping my wife deliver a boy and a girl. Cutting the tubes was easy, quick, and in a couple of days I was back out and about as usual.

The basis of the choice was to decide whether she should be disconnected or I should. Considering the long term, it made the most sense for me to be disconnected. It made NO difference in terms of the usual performance for me.

I think it was easier to prevent myself from starting a life I couldn't support, than it would have been to put my true love through any of the available options.

So I am against abortions, but I'm a strong supporter of men having their tubes cut after one or two kids. The surrounding issues, of course, aren't that simple.

But if a lady's life is in danger with regard to childbirth and the prognosis is very bad, then I think it would be really stupid to force the thing through. Commonsense has to prevail somewhere, especially after prayer. God's the right arbiter of most situations.

 

[itsbob]

What bob, in all his glorious top ten near perfection, is leaving out, is one of the major historical goals of a given religion is the overall well being of a given group of people and in a world where numbers counted for everything, the very natural idea of having kids served the larger purposes. Catholicism wasn't against birth control so men could control women. It was against it because the society needed bodies.

Biology is destiny and men are driven to sow seed and woman are driven to bare children. At the end of the day, it is our ONLY real purpose. Education and Westernization have changed all of that so that, on paper, our modern pursuits self realization and self satisfaction are trending us towards natural self extinction where our best and brightest, like bob, have less and less kids while the teeming masses of lesser beings just keep popping them out.

Far from any grand male plot of actually thinking through how to keep women down so as to keep them barefoot, pregnant and away from the remote, discouraging birth control is species survival in it's simplest form not to mention the abject barbarism of abortion. The need is real in a survival sense and the instinct is hard wired.

If men were to be the baby bearers, instead of arguing we'd have no debate over who gets to decide about birth control, which we wouldn't, I would argue were a man to get pregnant, carry him or her for 9 months and bare a child what we'd really have is...

...less violence and less war, male dominated activities that also serve the base purpose; survival. That was the underlying reality when we first started killing each other with sticks and it's been the purpose ever since right up to today.

So, while it is interesting to consider modern feminism and the idiotic claim that men use sex as planned, thought out violence towards women with the goal of dominating y'all because we're just mean and sadistic, the truth is, as usual, a good bit more benign and boring; we ain't smart enough to out think biology. We're little two legged human combines and y'all are vast fields in need of planting.

Except, of course, bob.

Close but not quite. Churches, again run by men, did not have societies needs in place Bu their needs. Society, historically didn't need nor.want more people as when numbers exploded shortly thereafter so did disease, famine amd pestilence, but eveen in the worst of these times the religious leadership (of all faiths) said BC is a sin, that you MUST have as many.kids as you can in your lifetime, in spite of societal woes or in total disregard.of the health and well being of the woman (having 20 kids really had no ill effect on men, and I don't know of any.man dying during labor or childbirth).

Churches only concern was.growth at any cost, or anyone's cost, the.same reason all the major churches.have missionaries stationed around the world. Growth at.any cost.

A man and a.woman marry and follow their churches teachings and have 18 kids, the churh roles increase 9 fold. Next generation the majority of their kids continue to.follow the rules,marry and they have 12 kids a piece. Astronomical growth over just a few.generations.

Then you can start the statistical machine. 10,000 members today, of which 60% pay tithing.of some.sort.

5,000 couples average 10 kids a piece, first generation you have 60% of 60,000 people that pay.. next generation you have 25000 couples, 10 kids a piece. In just 2 generations you went from 10,000 members to 310,000 of which 60% will more.than likely pay some kind of tithing.

Quite.the business model, has NOTHING to.do with societies.needs.

 

[Larry Gude]

Close but not quite. Churches, again run by men, did not have societies needs in place Bu their needs. Society, historically didn't need nor.want more people as when numbers exploded shortly thereafter so did disease, famine amd pestilence, but eveen in the worst of these times the religious leadership (of all faiths) said BC is a sin, that you MUST have as many.kids as you can in your lifetime, in spite of societal woes or in total disregard.of the health and well being of the woman (having 20 kids really had no ill effect on men, and I don't know of any.man dying during labor or childbirth).

Churches only concern was.growth at any cost, or anyone's cost, the.same reason all the major churches.have missionaries stationed around the world. Growth at.any cost.

A man and a.woman marry and follow their churches teachings and have 18 kids, the churh roles increase 9 fold. Next generation the majority of their kids continue to.follow the rules,marry and they have 12 kids a piece. Astronomical growth over just a few.generations.

Then you can start the statistical machine. 10,000 members today, of which 60% pay tithing.of some.sort.

5,000 couples average 10 kids a piece, first generation you have 60% of 60,000 people that pay.. next generation you have 25000 couples, 10 kids a piece. In just 2 generations you went from 10,000 members to 310,000 of which 60% will more.than likely pay some kind of tithing.

Quite.the business model, has NOTHING to.do with societies.needs.

bob, correct me if I am wrong but, you are saying 'society' did not want or need more people yet saying the churches only goal was growth at anyone's cost and that it was quite the business model, yes?

My history learning tells me churches, faiths, those who directed cultures WERE the society, the organizing principle, be it Huns or Mongols or Saxon's or any number of strains of Islam or other Asians, etc, etc, etc. You are suggesting, correct me if I have this wrong, that it was all so that a few people could sit back and reap the benefits absent any real need for the group???

 

[itsbob]

bob, correct me if I am wrong but, you are saying 'society' did not want or need more people yet saying the churches only goal was growth at anyone's cost and that it was quite the business model, yes?

My history learning tells me churches, faiths, those who directed cultures WERE the society, the organizing principle, be it Huns or Mongols or Saxon's or any number of strains of Islam or other Asians, etc, etc, etc. You are suggesting, correct me if I have this wrong, that it was all so that a few people could sit back and reap the benefits absent any real need for the group???

Your last.statement nailed it... Kings had kingdoms that were limited by borders and ethnicities where Popes and other church leaders did not have those issues, and throughout time Kings and Tyrants ALL answered to their church at some level (Stalin/Lenin being the opposing fact, and they had NO issue lowering.their.population numbers).

Where kings were limited to realestate and riches, and wanted.to limit populations to what they could rule AND support, the churches demanded just the opposite while.demanding payment from both the royalty and the.serf.

Besides if society was first on their minds they would have spent their churches fortunes.on feeding members during famine, or.caring.for.them during disease instead.of insisting you MUST build bigger and greater temples and spend.all of your riches on them (by giving.all your riches to the church) to earn God's forgiveness.

Population wise, during.these great societal tragedies they wanted.you to have MORE kids. If they wanted.to net 10 kids per couple and the plague.was ravaging the countryside they still wanted.to have net.growth. If the.plague had a 50% survival rate then you better have 20 kids to.stay in God's good.graces..

Some (most) churhes were so into this model that they not only allowed Polygamy but required it. More wives you had, the.more kids you had the holier and.more deserving you were. It even calls it out in the Bible as being commanded by God.