Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Political Palace (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Male Reproductive Rights (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1450)

Bradylama Mar 11, 2006 10:22 PM

Sarcasm, Dev.

Sarag Mar 12, 2006 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordjames
Then the mother would have to determine whether she can raise the child without the support of the father. If she can, then she could continue with the planned pregnancy and raise the child by herself, a phenomenon that has become increasingly common today. If not, then she could decide to have the child aborted and not be burdened with the responsibility of providing for a child by herself. In the case of the father, theoretically, he would need to release himself of those parental responsibilities during the period in which the mother could legally proceed with an abortion, allowing her the freedom to decide whether she wants to have the baby by herself or not.

You're insane.

Under the current law, neither parent is free to abandon the living child. The father has to provide support, but he does not have to provide sole support. How does your plan make anything equal at all?

There is also the fact that your plan will encourage more abortions, something that no one wants. Even pro-choice people want to limit abortions where possible.

Also, under the current law, the phenomon of women raising their children without any support from the fathers whatsoever is only becoming more common because of deadbeats, which are against the law and not at all the mother's choice. Are you Gohan?


Quote:

This is how a theoretical male abortion might take place. The logic is interesting,
The logic isn't interesting, it's vile and wholly selfish.

Double Post:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh
Really? Would you care to enlighten me as to my "child's view of morality" then? Now don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that men should be able to say "I don't want this kid, go get an abortion". I'm for abolishing abortion as an alternative form of birth control, as to which it is used now.

Under your plan, many more men who never wanted children in the first place now have to support them, ruining their lives etc etc. Taking everyone's rights away is only equivilant to giving men rights in the eyes of a child who likes taking the morally easy way out.

Does that help you?


Double Post:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh
What did we do before abortion?

There has always been abortion, my friend. Some of the earliest Egyptian texts are on abortative measures and pregnancy prevention. Abortion is in the bible - I believe if you abort the child before it starts moving around in the mother, it's okay by God. That might be old testament though, I dont' really know.

There was also very poor to non-existant health standards. People frequently buried their children. if they had less children from family planning, they would not have to bury any of them. This is less a concern in America (except in the really shitty places), and much much more of a concern in the third-world. Therefore, I would not expect you to know them, because you have a child's view of morality.

Watts Mar 12, 2006 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devo
more mothers might be putting their girls on birth control, saying it's an "acne" medicine.

ahahah!!! I almost fell outta my chair laughing at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devo
Oh snap :(

Sorry Watts

Yeah it's okay.... but that was pretty funny. Possibly true. Anything's possible :p

Minion Mar 12, 2006 08:04 AM

Quote:

Abortion is in the bible - I believe if you abort the child before it starts moving around in the mother, it's okay by God. That might be old testament though, I dont' really know.
Er, not really. There is a passage that people use to support their anti-abortion opinions, but it doesn't say anything like that.

Quote:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." --Exodus 21:22-25
This seems to imply that killing a fetus is the same thing as killing a person.

Bradylama Mar 12, 2006 08:29 AM

But is the passage talking about the damage made to the fetus, or to the mother?

Minion Mar 12, 2006 08:30 AM

Clearly the fetus.

Bradylama Mar 12, 2006 08:40 AM

No, it's not clear at all. The passage only gives mention of the premature birthing, but no indication that a child has been damaged at all. Then it makes a general reference to the rule of an eye for an eye. Since it is the husband that has to sue for the damages, the assumtion is being made that the wife is incapable of such duties, which to me, implies damage to his pregnant wife.

What would be more important at this point, the baby or the baby factory?

Minion Mar 12, 2006 08:58 AM

Uh... okay. And people wonder why the Bible gets interpreted "so many ways."

The husband sues because the wife has no rights. This is the kind of society you're dealing with.

It talks about injury in the same sentence that it mentions premature birth. How could it be anymore clear?

Like you said, there is already the eye for an eye rule. Why would they reiterate it for a pregnant woman?

Bradylama Mar 12, 2006 12:36 PM

Because assuming that the premature birth had caused gynecological issues, or impaired her from ever being able to bear children, the same would be done to her assailant, or her assailant's wife.

Think about this. If damage to a fetus or baby is to be visited upon in equal measure, would the assailant's wife also be forced to a premature birth?

RacinReaver Mar 12, 2006 07:05 PM

That passage doesn't seem to have a whole lot to say about consentual punching of a woman in the stomach, though.

lordjames Mar 12, 2006 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a lurker
Under the current law, neither parent is free to abandon the living child. The father has to provide support, but he does not have to provide sole support. How does your plan make anything equal at all?

You're missing the point. This does not in any way entail the abandonment of a child. The issue of this debate is one party being entirely dependant on the other in an important matter. The mother has full control over whether the father will be committing a portion of his salary to this child over the next 18+ years. This is a clear case of an externality involved, wherein the consequences that would be incurred by the father as a result of the mother making a unilteral decision to proceed with childbirth are entirely ignored in the matter. Therefore, in response to how this makes anything equal, I would simply respond by asking how the status quo is in any form equal considering the above. And although this proposal certainly doesn't make things fully equal, since that would be impossible considering the biological limitations involved, it certainly goes further than the status quo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a lurker
There is also the fact that your plan will encourage more abortions, something that no one wants. Even pro-choice people want to limit abortions where possible.

I don't think this would necessarily encourage more abortions, and even if this is true, and there's nothing to suggests it is, then it should be of secondary concern considering the major imbalance between the genders in the decision making capacity of this matter. If we accept Roe v. Wade as a precedent, and all other jurisprudence associated with abortion, the number of abortions is of secondary concern when the livelihoods, rights of some are at risk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a lurker
Also, under the current law, the phenomon of women raising their children without any support from the fathers whatsoever is only becoming more common because of deadbeats, which are against the law and not at all the mother's choice.

Ha! Then if you accept this as true, fewer women should suffer materially because fewer women would be stuck raising children on their own after the child is born, since men would now have a legitimate channel to get their intentions across without fear of court reprisal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a lurker
The logic isn't interesting, it's vile and wholly selfish.

Women ignoring the conditions of the men involved seems awfully selfish and inconsiderate to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord Jaroh
The only problem I have with your statements was this one. Just because it is the reality today, doesn't make it right.

Laws have to adapt to the realities of the society in which these laws are present. Having archaic laws in a postmodern society only encourages those laws to be ignored, depending on the intrusiveness of those laws in the personal livelihoods of individuals.

Sarag Mar 13, 2006 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minion
Uh... okay. And people wonder why the Bible gets interpreted "so many ways."

The husband sues because the wife has no rights. This is the kind of society you're dealing with.

She's the husband's property, and he deserves repayment for any injury brought to her. Same with slaves.

Really, it's not very clear at all.


Double Post:
Quote:

Originally Posted by lordjames
You're missing the point. This does not in any way entail the abandonment of a child. The issue of this debate is one party being entirely dependant on the other in an important matter.

You are delusional.

Really, that covers it all.

$10 says he's going to reply with "if you think this is delusional then YOU MUST BE AGAINST FEMALE ABORTION TOO".

Chibi Neko Mar 13, 2006 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordjames
This is not an issue of reproductive rights (although at certain points they intersect insofar as the mother chooses to abort the child) but parental obligations.

Not an issue of reproductive rights? Are you sure you are in the right thread?

Minion Mar 13, 2006 08:51 AM

Quote:

Really, it's not very clear at all.
Sure. Nothing is ever clear if you want it to be unclear. I won't sit here and argue with you lot, though. It's like arguing about what Shakespeare meant with people who act like he was writing in 1980.

Sarag Mar 13, 2006 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minion
It's like arguing about what Shakespeare meant with people who act like he was writing in 1980.

Oh please tell me you're comparing Shakespeare to the Bible.

he was a dirty old man though

Minion Mar 13, 2006 12:55 PM

As if you could say whether or not a comparison is possible. How much of either have you honestly read?

PUG1911 Mar 13, 2006 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minion
Sure. Nothing is ever clear if you want it to be unclear. I won't sit here and argue with you lot, though.

Sure. And things are very clear if you want to interpret a thing a certain way. If one's mind is made up about what is refferenced in a passage, then you are sure to find the reinforcement you were looking for.

But on this issue I've got to say that although I can't speak for the US system, here things are not set up as well as they should be. I believe that a man should have to support his children, and that he shouldn't have a legal say in whether or not the woman has an abortion. The system wherein the support is determined and enforced could use some help though.

Also, I find the whole ignorance defense when it comes to consequences of sex is pretty sad. I've never met someone who was ignorant to the extent that some have argued about in this thread. So this really comes down to a very poor education system wherever this is an issue. If you don't know that sex has an inherent chance of pregnancy, then you should have been taught better at an earlier age. Sounds like it's this education that needs a reform more than anything else. It sounds most unfair to legislate morality if you haven't done your best to *first* teach kids what they need to know before they get into trouble. Y'know, try to help people out first, and then if you really think you'd like to legislate morality, then do that second.

Minion Mar 13, 2006 02:27 PM

Quote:

Sure. And things are very clear if you want to interpret a thing a certain way. If one's mind is made up about what is refferenced in a passage, then you are sure to find the reinforcement you were looking for.
If you interpret it any other way, then it's just redundant, but I guess that just goes to show you. These idiot religious folk!

Bradylama Mar 13, 2006 03:14 PM

So, what exactly is the problem here? Is it the ambigious nature of the language used in the passage, or is it something wrong with me?

Minion Mar 13, 2006 03:33 PM

I'm gonna go with your complete ignorance of the context, which is usually the case when it comes to Bible interpretation.

Secret Squirrel Mar 13, 2006 03:48 PM

How much of that verse is even applicable today, and how much is just 3000 year old hebrew law. If you look at the verse immediately preceding and following it, you get laws that are tossed because they are no longer applicable because of the evolution of human thought (or maybe because the New Covenant replaced all this stuff.)

Quote:

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

Bradylama Mar 13, 2006 03:48 PM

So why haven't you provided the proper context instead of just quoting the singular passage from the Bible?

Right, so he wasn't quoting verbatim. Or a different translation?

In any case, that still doesn't solve the moral conundrum presented in the Eye for an Eye rule, if the passage truly applies to the fetus. Does that mean that the assailant's wife would be forced to premature birth? Presumably something of equal value would have to be given up, but there isn't an alternative solution given, as there are with the other violations of the law.

Minion Mar 13, 2006 04:05 PM

The context would be the entire mosaic law. Not sure you want me to post that.

I'm not suggesting that the law still be followed, but what I AM saying is that it seems to indicate that according to the Bible, the fetus has the same rights as a person. It is considered a valid party according to the eye for an eye law. If it weren't, it would be the equivalent of a slave or something and damage done to it would not result in the same damage done back to the perpetrator. This, I think, justifies the belief that the Abrahamic God is against abortion.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.