Male Reproductive Rights
 

Today the National Center for Men has made a lawsuit that is to challenge the sole choice that women have in reproductive rights. Heres the link http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml
Go here to read more from them. I think that it is about time that men stood up for there rights and play apart in this issue.

The phrase "Your rights end where my nose begins" has as much truth here as in any other topic. The fact of the matter is, that men don't have to carry the pregnancy, and men aren't in danger for their very lives by reproducing. Whether or not a child should be aborted should always be the sole discretion of the mother, and whatever reason she has for aborting it is impossible to determine, and of no business to the state.

The problem in your arguement is that men will never be able to carry the baby. But they still have all the responsibilities that the mother has. Men should have the same rights that women have. Equal rights for all. If the man wants to raise the child on his own then he should be able to.

No, men don't have all the responsibilities that women have when it comes to a pregnancy, and that is ultimately what an abortion is, the termination of a pregnancy.

Men can drink, eat, and smoke whatever they please, while women have to refrain from ingesting such toxins to ensure the physical and mental health of the child. Women have to eat enough to nourish both themselves, and the child, and women have to make sure that they're avoiding sharp corners and whatnot.

Men don't have the same responsibilities as women when it comes to a pregnancy. If you think otherwise, you have no clue about human anatomy.

Though, apparently wearing proper attire isn't a woman's responsibility during pregnancy. 8 months pregnant bitch thinks she can wear a button-up shirt to church? Who the fuck does she think she is? Put on a moo moo for God's sake, you know he's watching.

All I can say is: about damn time.

hell ya! I aprove 100%. Why should men be left paying money for the baby, as if it was their fault that it happened? If women can deny a child, men should too!

I'm having a hard time interpreting that as anything but sarcasm, but I don't think I've seen you post much before, so I have to assume you're a cretin.

Whether or not a man pays more, or equal money to raise a child than a woman is ultimately up to the couple. If they think that the man can pay the rent on his lonesome, that's great. However, the advent of dual-income households suggest otherwise, especially with so many companies that offer maternity leave as a bonus package to their employees. A benefit only collectible, by the way, by women.

If men paying all of the money for the child was a universal constant, then why do we even have Daycares?

Brady, you may say that men aren't the ones carrying it, but sometimes, on some rare occassion, the man actually DOES want to have the child and would be willing to care for it, even if the woman isn't interested. It wouldn't be fair for her to abort it in that instance. Yes, she has to deal with it for 9 months, but after that, if they can come to some legal agreement about parental rights, then she shouldn't have a right to abort it. A child is as much the man as it is the woman.

Now if the man didn't give a rats ass, like in about 98.7% of society nowadays, then he shouldn't have a say. But they should have some rights if they're the other 1.3%.

Yet you continuously ignore the purpose of an abortion, which isn't to block the ability to reproduce, but is the termination of a pregnancy. Since it is the woman, who is in fact pregnant, it should always be the woman's sole discretion whether or not a child, her child, needs to be brought into the world as it is her physical well-being at stake. Whether or not the child is a man's baby, he is not the one who has to deal with the physical ramifications of it, and therefore, all physical aspects of a pregnancy should be determined by a woman, including the termination of said pregnancy.

Men don't have any, get used to it. If you get your partner pregnant and neither of you was using any contraceptive products (pills, condom, etc..) you're basically giving her full control over whether the potential kid is born or not.

What would mens rights be if you were using a condom, and it failed? Just curious

And your partner got pregnant and she wants to carry the kid to term? None, you have no right there either. Sure there would be a lot of "what if" situations, and there have been quite a few already, but the choice is ultimately up to the woman.

Is that even a question? They'd be the same as they had before.

I would disagree with this. Given a situation in which my partner became pregnant but felt she didn't want to go through with pregnancy I would argue that I have a right to fight for that child's life. I understand I don't have the responsibility of carrying and delivering the child but I think I would be pretty upset if I knew I was a father but my partner made a decision to terminate the pregnancy and I ultimately could do nothing about it.

That's great then, find yourself a new bitch to soil with your seed. Whatever social problems you have with your woman where she can't trust you enough to talk to you about an abortion is your problem.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you feel, because laws don't exist to coddle you, and make the world your personal oyster.

But that comes back to what Bradylama said up top:

You put the sperm in her body, one which she has rights over, including whether or not she keeps or removes the kid. Heck, there are debates about what stage you can even call it a child, let alone its rights. You're right about it being rather upsetting for a man if he actually wanted this kid and his partner didn't, but it's ultimately up to her.

Now, if this had been done via IVF which requires consent from both parties at every step of the way, then you'd have an option.

Fathers should definitely not be given the right to demand an abortion, but they should be allowed to request one. Failing that, they should have the right to choose not to support the child. Either way, neither party should have more authority over whether or not the other party is responsible for the baby.

Yeah.... I would have to say that men really don't have much to say about whether I woman should have an abortion or not. Of course, I think a man should be hear, but I don't think he should have final say about everything.

Rationality should always play a role in decisions like this.

But wouldn't what people consider a child differ from one person to the next? Some think a bunch of cells is a child and mention the same thing you said above, while others don't think anything's being punished until well into the pregnancy.

And that question, couldn't you replace father with mother and end up with a nasty, but realistic, answer to that question? The answer, of course, being that she can "punish" the child because of her right over her own body.

Minion, wouldn't that open up the ability for some men to have sex without using protection, get a woman pregnant and if she decides to keep the baby, absolve themselves of any legal or financial responsibility for their kid?

Why should the women have all the authority when it comes to child care? You can argue about the fetus being her body, but what gives her the right to absolutely determine whether or not the father has to support a child?

I think that if either a man or a woman is by law required to support the child if it is born, then the man or woman should be able to request that the child be aborted if s/he will refuse to support the child

I'm talking and the article is talking about the right the fathers have to not support their living offspring, not the pregnancies they have caused.

Double Post:
You are absolutely right. it is not the mother's decision, in fact, whether the father supports the child or not. It is the law's decision that he supports the child financially, and that she does as well.

Okay, say a guy is sleeping with this chick and they have an agreement that they don't want kids, but the mother decides shes not going to take the pill and not tell him because she wants a baby even though he doesn't? What are this man's rights? Is forcing this guy to raise this child any different than forcing a raped woman to raise her child?

Maybe people shouldn't fuck each other period and avoid this problem altogether.

Also, men don't have reproductive rights once that sperm leaves their sack. Consider it a gift to the woman; one that she can throw away.

I'm playing devil's advocate. I don't think 9 out of 10 abortions should happen anyway. In fact, I don't think 9 out of 10 people should be fucking.

Ah, ok.


That's pretty much it. It's essentially in the child's best interests to have both parents supporting them, even if one of them is only doing so financially.

Wasn't there a case like this recently? In any case, wouldn't it be fraud? He'd still have to support the child, again, because it's in the child's best interests. The raped woman would have to carry around the product of her rape for 9 months, endure various health problems and labor and then try and raise her rapist's offspring. It's far removed from a man tricked by his partner into having a kid, and at the bare minimum supporting them financially.

The right to give someone exclusive rights to a decision as big as life should not be left up to one person. You can give me all the crap about it being her body but if half of that baby's genes are mine then i have every right to say how the care of my child is handled. Parental rights begin at conception.

This would be a lot less complicated if we just stopped killing babies indiscriminantly.

Then don't fuck a chick who doesn't want kids, genius.

By that standard all the men who didn't want kids should not have had to have responsibility to them if they didn't want to.

No, see, the way I see it, if you look at an (unwanted) child as a mistake, don't be a bitch and cop out of it; hone up to your responsibility and support the kid.

Meanwhile, again I restate, don't fuck someone who want kids and you don't. Don't let someone fuck you who wants kids and you don't. Don't fuck (irresponsibly!) if one of you don't want kids. Rape is an entirely different matter altogether, but for the former, all of this bullshit could pretty much be easily taken care of if people stopped to consider what they're getting themselves into.

Wait.
So you are suggesting, in a manner of speaking... a-b-s-t-i-n-e-n-c-e?

I wonder how many people actually want to consider that an option.

My guess is not that many though.

Not necessarilly abstinence, though that is a sure-fire way to prevent this whole mess of moral bullshit.

I just mean that if you two can't come to an agreement, if, should, when one of you become pregnant, then you should probably refrain from fucking, or maybe even being together, altogether.

Yes, it's different.

No, it's still not fair for the guy.

But neither men nor women should ever have the right to up and walk away from their living, breathing child without supporting it in some way.

Do you support forcing the mother of your unborn child through an abortion because you do not want to support her (your) child?

This is definitely one of those issues where, yes it's unfair, but life is unfair in more ways than just this. We as men need to stop dwelling on the negative and just accept our responsibility like ... well ... men.

With the number of people and groups who are clamboring for some pretty obtuse rights, it'll be refreshing to see someone accept a social responsibility instead.

The mother carries a child for nine months. Not the father.

The mother's diet, health, and so on are what impacts the fetus. Not the father's.

The fetus gets its immunities, mitochondrial DNA, and so on overwhelmingly from the mother. Not the father.

The mother is the ones who face the dangers, complications, pain, and (depending on the person and circumstances) inconvenience of pregnancy and giving birth. Not the father.

Sorry, but once you deposit the sperm, the ball's in her court. Arguing for something as silly as "it's partly my genetic material, so I own the fetus too!" is understandable in some ways, but ultimately selfish. This isn't fucking copyright law. What you did by accident in two minutes doesn't trump what she'll have to go through for nine months.

The problem with that kind of argument is that it's essentially arguing that a man should be able to decide whether a woman is allowed to get an abortion. It's arguing that if she doesn't want to carry the baby, he should be able to force her to spent nine months miserable and force her to take the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. I don't know about the States, but here in Canada it's been settled.

To me this whole issue boils down to the simple rule, that you shouldn't be sleeping with anyone you cannot trust enough to take the necessary precautions and/or responsibilites - period. Sex does not have to involve love to be fun but if it's not founded on mutual trust and respect ... what the hell is going on in your life?

A whole lot of hedonism, at the least.
At the worst... only God knows.

Sure, the woman has to put up with the pregnancy, but that means that SHE wants to pay for the financial burden of upbringing the child, but men do not have a choice in the matter.

Quite frankly, that's bullshit. There is no 100% anti-birth control, so the fact is that if something goes wrong, the guy gets fucked if the girl gets pregnant and decides to carry it to term.

The way this system is worked out, we would likely need a signed contract of some sort to prevent any sort of unwanted pregnancy becoming a financial burden for us men, and even then I'm not sure if that would hold up in any court of law.

The fact of the matter is: If the man has to retain any sort of responsibility to the child, financial or otherwise, then he should have a choice in the matter as to abortions or financial obligations. This is some seriously one-sided crap. I respect the 9 months women go through for childbirth, but cutting men out of a process that has LIFETIME financial rammifications for them is just plain stupid.

Male Reproductive Rights? You gotta be kidding me.

I think we should roll back laws to the Roman-era so that patriarch can make life and death decisions about any family/relationship matters!

Now THAT was hilarious.


Sure there is. Oral sex, dry humping, or even pulling out before ejaculation even WITH a condom. No way to get anybody pregnant there.

I agree. I think as long as at least one parent WANTS the child, there is no reason to abort it.

In fact I have to question why anyone would want an abortion. A parents primary duty is to protect their child, correct? I have no respect for a parent who would kill their own child just to make their (the parents) life a little easier. Thats what abrotion is all about after all...

Oh yes abortion is so evil. Lets force those rape victims to carry that bastard child. Lets force parents who cannot support a child have one so the child can starve and suffer thier whole life. Lets force mothers and fathers to have children with birth defects or disabilities thier whole life. I mean, it doesn't matter if the child has no chance of surviving or will never be able to function or grow in our world correctly. Because it's the right thing to let that baby be born!

Give me a break. Just because some people abuse the system doesn't mean it's wrong. There are some valid reasons to cancel a pregnancy.

I see where these guys are coming from. I really do. But I completely disagree that a man should ever have the authority to tell a woman what to do with HER body. Also, in these situations (99% of the time), not only is the woman going to be the primary caregiver in the literal sense, but she's going to carry a huge majority of the financial burden of the child, even if the guy does end up "having" to pay child support. They figure that shit out using a formula, and the person with custody ends up paying way more, whether its the mother or the father.

I don't think it's fair that men have no say, though. It just doesn't seem right. Maybe they could come up with something where if a guy officially requests the woman to have an abortion - going through some preset process - and she refuses, the amount of child support he's required to pay is significantly reduced.

I also think that if a guy chooses that route, he automatically forfeits his right to visitation, etc. having clearly demonstrated that he would rather see his child dead than have to fork over any money.

That's not, however, what is in the best interests for the child. Clearly, being distant and unwanted by your father is already not in the best interest for a child, but then, children need all of the support that they can get. In that sense, the least that a man could do is support his own offspring at least monetarily.

This is because laws lean to forcing individual responsibility. Parenthood is not something you can simply default out of, nor should it ever be that way. It may not be fair that a man is forced to support a child he didn't want, but then that's the price for not taking the personal responsibility to avoid reproduction.

You chose to date the bitch, you chose to sleep with her, and it was your fault that you didn't wear a condom or keep your condoms in a hidden place where they couldn't be tampered with. Even assuming that one did perform the latter, we still default to the former, in that one chose to sleep with a psycho.

Lots of things in life aren't fair, including the standards that society places on individuals. Yet, society feels that it is the biological father's responsibility to help support his own offspring, so they should just have to deal with it. No political maneuvering or temper tantrums will be able to change the spirit of the law that is against them.

Isn't this the whole justification for legalizing abortion of unwanted pregnancies other than rape/possible death situations? At least that's what people tell me. Better to kill a kid than have him grow up unwanted. That only works if the mother doesn't want him though, huh?

Well, that assumes that the fetus is actually a kid, which has already been covered.

Er... not really. Aborition is justified because it's better to abort than raise a child the mother doesn't want, but it's not better to abort than raise a child the father doesn't want. Explain that.

I'm talking about a women who just doesn't want to have a child. Forget about the pregnancy part. A woman has full rights to terminate a pregnancy just because she feels like it. There could be no danger at all. This is justified by pro-choicers because supposedly it's better for a child not to live at all then to grow up unwanted. But it's perfectly okay for a child to grow up unwanted by the father? The answer, as most of you have said, is no. Therefore, the woman's right to terminate a pregnancy because the baby is unwanted is bullshit. It should only happen in extreme circumstances, like when the woman's life is in danger.

That's not what's being said at all. Terminating a pregnancy because a child is unwanted is only a part of a myriad of reasons why a woman would elect to have an abortion, and it is because those reasons are impossible to determine that abortions must be legal.

If a father does not want a child, then sucks for the kid, but his mother did want him, thus making the child wanted by at least somebody. If you then turn the argument back around to the father wanting the child, and the mother not, then your philosophical point falls flat on its face due to the technical terms of an abortion, i.e., the woman carries the child.

If you try to argue for Men's Reproductive Rights, you won't get anywhere, because no matter how you look at it, men don't get pregnant, and the term of an abortion is that it is the termination of a pregnancy.

Call it Baby Killing if you want, but under no circumstances should a male have any legal say over whether or not a pregnancy is brought to term, nor should he have to default out of supporting said child. Life sucks, accept your responsibilities as a man and suck it up.

I do agree that men need to take responsibilty for there actions and SO DO WOMEN. If you CHOOSE to have sex then you have taken the risk of having a child. That is the purpose of sex. But a man should have every right that a woman has in the matter of abortion. It may be her body that has to carry it, but it is still half his child. If she does not want the child then he should be able to raise it. It is selfish on either parties part if they want to abort so that it will be more convient for there lives.

As far as Canadian Law is concerned, I do not live in Canada and think that it is a shame that they have no respect for the life of there unborn. The unborn should be fought with all that we have. They have no voice. They cannot speak up for themselves. Do you think that they want to die. Who knows what human you are killing. That baby could grow up to be writer, teacher, scientist, etc.

So, it's selfish for people to elect an abortion out of convenience, but a man forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term for his own sense of satisfaction isn't?

No it is not selfish. He is living up to his responsibilities and taking care of the thing that he helped to create. I see nothing selfish in his request.

As far as the nine months thing. Maybe that will give her sometime to think about the next time she is going to have sex. Maybe the thought "Hey this can happen to me again, I better wait untill I am with someone I want to have a baby with, or I am ready to have one on my own"

That's sensible, but people will blow off responsibility whenever they can and we happen to live in a society that makes it legal for them to do so.

It happens Devo. And it shouldn't. That's all I'm saying. It's not a black OR a white issue. There should be rules and restrictions. We could easily justify anything using this same kind of reasoning, but we have laws for a reason.

So, forcing a woman to go through the pains of a pregnancy to satisfy one's own ego, is not selfish? There is no action one could take that wouldn't be considered selfish. Even assuming that one does elect to have a child that they didn't want, that just means that they're accepting responsibilities in order to satisfy their sense of duty, and thus their ego.

Isn't that like the only reason people have abortions?

I mean, there are so many responsibilities included for having a child than just taking care of it once it's outside of you.

This is not to say that those who have abortions are irresponsible, of course.

I dont know how you can say that someone wanting to except responsibilities for there actions is selfish, nay i say it is admirable and should be lifted up for praise. Would you have wanted your mom to have an abortion when you were in her body? Wouldn't you want someone fighting for you on the outside? Look at it personally and see if you were in that babies place would you like to be told that your life should not exist because someone doesn't want to take responsibilities for there actions. Most were taught that you should take responsibilities for there actions, yet when it is most critical we cop out and hit that easy switch.

Okay... taking your statement here and doing a bit of a flip on it.
Suppose for instance that at the time the couple discover that the woman is pregant and the guy decides he wants to take responsibility for it at that time, but somewhere down the road a few months from now he has had time to think it over... weighed his options... and now does not want to take responsibility for it. What then? At that point in time there is a chance that the pregancy cannot be terminated and the woman who has been forced to carry this fetus to term is left holding the bag.
What is to prevent the man from flip-flopping on his initial decision to do "the right thing" and decide to not take responsibility? Can he just walk away without any sort of ties to something that he initially wanted and now wants to be no part of?

Actually, I find that everyone does know about sex and the consequences; they simply choose to ignore them for the pleasure of the moment. I myself do not agree with the "easy switch" from life's problems. Certainly, there are exceptions (rape victims, etc.), but for the majority, if you get pregnant, then you should carry it to term.

Nowadays society is all about the easy way out, shirking responisbilities, and shifting blame. Maybe people should actually take responsibilities for their choices for a change, and it might make this society better. Maybe the woman/man shouldn't have had sex to begin with, and with the easy way out of abortion, there's no consequences for having screwed up. People learn from experience.

As if you know everyone. :rolleyes:

My girlfriend's 15-year-old sister (who is sexually active) didn't know that precum contained sperm. I doubt she's the only sexually active person who's ignorant of this fact, too. You can't ignore facts you don't know.

That may not mean she's still not at fault if she gets pregnant, but there are intricacies involved that not everyone knows.

I think the world needs more abortions, personally.

Okay, maybe everyone that I know knows the consequences. I took classes in school when I was 12-13 called Sexual Awareness. It teaches you all about that sort of thing, how the body changes through puberty, what sex is, how to protect yourself, etc. Now if kids would actually listen instead of ignoring facts that are blatently given to them...

If she got pregnant because she is stupid enough to have sex when she's 15, then I would say "tough luck, time to grow up and act like an adult, since apparently she wants to have sex like one"

How many teenagers actually paid attention in those classes? They spent most of the time giggling and laughing and whatnot...
Ohhh... a vagina... ewww... a penis...

And who's fault is that?

Invasion of the Canuck Mysogynist.

I love how all the pro-lifers in this thread react to an abortion as if it were like filling out a prescription. Since when does an invasive surgery that could potentially make you a social outcast become the easy way out?

Something that has the potential to ruin someone's life is less severe than something that is guaranteed to, yes.

Having a child is never "guaranteed" to ruin somebody's life. If it was, then we've reached a pretty pessimistic view of parenthood and child rearing.

In some sense, it will. Your life will change drastically. As such, your life, as it was before the child, is ruined. You can look at this in a positive way, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Precisely. There's absolutely no positive outlook when it gets out that you had an abortion in Moonshine, Mississippi.

So once again, you advocate forcing a woman against her will into having an abortion in the name of 'fairness'?

Double Post:
It's incredibly unfortunate that some men have fatherhood thrust apon them. You are right, it isn't fair that she has "all" the say on whether a child is born or not.

However, the alternative - allowing men to force abortions or pregnancies on unwilling mothers - is absolutely reprehensible.* And once the child is born, neither parent is allowed to abandon it without support. I mean, the very suggestion is vile and disgusting, but there's no theoretical reason for it either.

Look, this is one of those laws where vindication has no place. For all the bleating the sixteen year olds keep up about what's fair, and all the abortion talk the pro-lifers keep putting in, I havne't heard one goddamned reason why we should legalize men abandoning their children. And that's what these guys are basically arguing for.

Additionally, it's really silly how some of you keep saying WELL THEY SHOULD JUST NOT HAVE SEX THEN. That argument is always funny. Who exactly are you trying to convince here?

* Outlawing abortion seems like a very quick and easy solution for those among us who have a child's view of morality. Limiting rights doesn't mean the same as equal rights, you obnoxious dicks.

It's not arguing abstinence, lurker. It's arguing not fucking someone who may want kids and you may not or vise versa ;_;

First everyone does know where babies come from and if you engage in sex there is the possibility that a child will be created. Its not anything difficult to understand. If you pull out, there is still a chance. If you use a condom there is still a chance.

Second I never said that a man should have the right to FORCE a woman to have an abortion, he should have a say in the matter. It is his child too!!

It is his child if she decides to carry the kid to term, sir.

Otherwise no, it's not really his or his to say it should be born or not.

The world i live in is reality if you believe that "pulling out before he cums?" crap then you are living in a fantasy world and soon reality will come wake you up.

Thank God the courts will soon decide just what rights a man has in this issue. Praise God for Alito and Roberts.

I also suppose he's trolling. Nobody could be this retarded. I haven't seen anybody in the Palace pass off this kind of drivel and seriously expect us to treat it like a rational point. This has to be trolling.

I also refuse to believe that it took me 10 minutes to catch up to speed just to have lurker beat me to the punch. =/

Edit: 7 minutes. =/

I guess I will just make my response simple.
anyone, man or woman, who does not want a child, should not be fucking. Either that or reliable methods of preventing pregnancy.

I guess it may not 'seem' fair to the men, but the fact is that the reproductive right is the woman's alone. 9 months of bodily changes and childbirth pain and risks are things that men do not have to worry about.

Besides, if a man really wants a child to raise and love, why not adopt? Adopted children require the same things.

Hang on, I never said that there arn't valid reasons for abortion. There are, however "I don't feel like raising a child" is NOT one of them. If you aren't willing to risk a pregnacy, then don't have sex. It's very simple really.

Let me tell you "pro-choice" folks a little story. I was an accident, my parents were not married at the time that I was concieved, and they were most certainly NOT planning on having children at that point. They were just college students after all. Now, this is a perfect example of a situation where you guys would say "abort, abort!!!".

However, my parents did the right thing. They got married, and my dad went out and found a job, and supported my mom and I. It wasn't easy for them (or me for that matter), but they did it anyway. In fact I have a great deal of resepect for my parents, because they made some big and difficult changes in their own lives for my sake, when they could have just as easily aborted me.

I was an accident in a similar fashion, yet I still believe that the ultimate choice about going through a pregnancy or not should remain with the women in question. Then again, this didn't keep me from recently encouraging a close friend of mine to keep her child and the path they're in for will likely be a tough one to go (because of money or rather the lack therof).

No pun intended, but I guess post-1950's sex education hasn't penetrated where you live.

Pre-ejaculation semen is not fertile enough to impregnant a woman. The problem is that most guys can't "get out" in time. But I don't live in reality. Then again I've never had to have anybody terminate a pregnancy either. Plus, you can always believe the conservative movement on health education right? They're never wrong! Well, except on AIDs..... but that's it.

Whether or not your parents wanted to abort you was their own choice. Nobody is encouraging potential parents to abort their children in any situation save perhaps the husband and her parents.

What you still fail to realize is that it's impossible to determine individual motives for abortion. Let's say your parents decided to abort you. They're both in college, both have very small if any income, everything screams of economic infeasability. But what if, say, your mom had a weak heart, and giving birth to you could kill her? What if your dad beat her, and she didn't want to bring his child into the world? What if she faced the threat of disownment if she had a child?

What your parents did was admirable on many levels, and while you may be here today, I can guarantee you that you wouldn't care if you had been aborted.

I don't really understand what you mean by that... you just listed a whole bunch of "motives", so how is it impossible?

I don't think it's right to end a life just to save a few bucks. And just because something seems difficult doesn't mean you should just give up.

If giving birth will likely kill the mother, I think it's reasonable to want an abortion.

Thats a tricky one... but I think it would be better to just leave the father and raise the child alone (or put the child up for adoption) than to have the abortion. It's hard to say though, this particular case is a no-win-situation no matter what you do...

That would be a pretty lame excuse IMHO. I believe that your responsibility to protect your child outweighs your responsibility to your parents...

Weather or not I "care" is irrelavent. Say I kill you in your sleep. I guarantee you wouldn't care (because you wouldn't see it coming). Does that make it okay?

Because human beings are capable of something called Deceit. If some bitch gets an abortion because she lost a bet with her friends, she sure as Hell isn't going to disclose that reason. It's impossible to truly know what someone is thinking during any point in their lives, because it is entirely possible that the reasonings they provide for their actions are false. How then, do we differentiate legitimate needs for abortion from trivial ones? We can't. Therefore, the safest course of action is to provide abortions to whoever that needs them, because if we get rid of abortions, then not only do we increase the burden on society to support the children, but we endanger the physical, mental, and economic well-being of women or couples that have damn good reasons for aborting their potential child.

Aside from that, it isn't anybody's place to judge the motives for an abortion. While you may not believe that a certain reason for an abortion is justifiable, that's none of your concern, because you aren't the one having the abortion. It's nobody's business but the woman's or the couple's, and inquiring into their reasonings is an egregious invasion of privacy.

Where do we stop at this reasoning? Is it not OK to slaughter a cow because maintaining her puts an extra burden on the farm? Is it not ok to euthenize your dog because its colostomy bag is too much hassle? How do we legislate these things? Do we simply stop at the human level, which is still a debateable status?

Besideswhich, it is again not your place to determine whether or not somebody should have an abortion. It is not your seed, it is not your body.

I've provided you with several cases for why your mom could have elected to abort you, and while you personally determine one to be ok, the second is indeterminable, and the third you consider a definite no-no. However, why is it that you should force your own reasoning on a person by power of law? How is it even possible to differentiate these motives without mind reading? You would argue that it's simply better to allow the child to be born, but not only does that put an undue burden on the parents, but it also impacts society as a whole, because children don't give back for 16 years. You are actively seeking to force a problem on society that doesn't have to exist.

Not according to the State, but as far as I'm concerned, drawing personal opinion on the matter would have no relevance, since I would no longer exist. Assuming that you were aborted, you wouldn't have even had a consciousness that existed in the first place. The only proof of your existance would have been a lump of cells in the garbage, and your defining aspect as a person, your ego, never would have come to be.

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.

The problem with the status quo, according to proponents of this law, is that men are often forced to pay for children they didn't want in the first place, or are required to pay for children when they're unable to do so because the mother insists on following through with the pregnancy. Granting men the right to opt out of such planned pregnancies would theoretically put them on an equal legal plain with women insofar as they wouldn't be dependant on women to dissolve their parental obligations, and, consequently, they could make that decision for themselves.

This is how a theoretical male abortion might take place. The logic is interesting, but I haven't made up my mind yet on whether I would support something like this or not.

A few things I want to attack:

This mode of thinking is outdated and doesn't correspond to the realities of the world today. Therefore, it doesn't hold as a modem for determining the legal validity of a postmodern legal conundrum.

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.

For the same reasons that millions of familes in the U.S. don't adopt: they want their own biological children.

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

Drugs are everywhere today, simple reality. Should we then have government controlled institutions to allow people to go and get high? Smoke a joint, sniff some coke, etc.? How about underage drinking? Teens do it all the time, should we thus allow teens to do it in regulated environments?

That mode of thinking is not really that outdated. It's simply that people today do not have any sense of responsibility to this world. If something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault, and they look for the easy way out.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you're going to go around fucking like an adult, then should something happen and you become pregnant, then that's too bad. It's time to grow up and act like a fucking adult. Take some responsibility for your own actions for a change.

As I said before, there are always exceptions to the rule, via rape victims, true health risks, etc, but abortion should not become the accepted normality of the situation.

Excuse me? I'm a mysogynist for not agreeing with abortion? I know that it's not as "simple as filling out a prescription", but it is a hell of a lot easier than having to change your lifestyle and raise another human being for the next 18 years of your life. Abortion is clearly "the easy way out".

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.

If you don't want a kid, don't fuck. It's a very simple equation. If you want to fuck, then use proper protection, but realize that if something happens, only yourself is to blame and accept responsibility for the outcome.

An alternative form of birth control would imply that one has reasonable options regarding the avoidance of a birth. Paying hundreds of dollars for an invasive surgery is hardly an "alternative." Especially when an abortion becomes the only course of action to avoid birth at the stage of pregnancy. It's not as if we can beam a fetus out of the womb and into an artificial one.

The idea that an abortion has come to be seen as a method of birth control in society is ludicrous. I don't know what kind of retarded white trash you live around, but society has hardly come to the point where an abortion is considered to be anything but a last resort.

I was still in the mindset of discussing Male Reproductive Rights.

How is electing to have an abortion not a responsible decision? If you have A. no economic ability to effectively raise a child, B. well aware that in giving up the child for adoption it becomes a burden of the state, which is clearly not in the best interests for the child, and C. that because of these conditions, electing to have this child could result in a much lower standard of living for any of your successive children, then how is electing to have an abortion in order to preserve the status quo not a responsible decision? It would be irresponsible to bring the child into a world where it could not be properly cared for, or shoved around like livestock.

Not to mention the concern of health risks, which apparently nobody has picked up on. I provided an example where David's mom had a weak heart, and possibly couldn't survive child birth. However, there is no guarantee that she will die from child birth, it is simply a matter of increased risk. How then, do we determine the acceptable level of risk for an abortion when all women are in danger of losing their life in the process of child birth? It would have to be performed on a case by case basis, and doing so would likely cost the state more money in the process, as well as bring the mother to a term in the pregnancy that is at the current time considered beyond the legal allowance.

What happens in this situation? Do you terminate a being that by legal account is now considered to be a child, or do you force the mother to risk her life in order to birth the child?

Not to mention that this still comes back to your argument of responsibility avoidance, and that by aborting a child that threatens her life, the mother is essentially shirking the responsibilities placed on her by her weak heart. Clearly, by your reasoning, if she didn't want to risk her life she should have never had sex, and that she should suck it up and take it like a woman (or take it out, as the case may be).

To you, somebody with a "Child's view of morality" this previously black and white view of moral action has become muddied. Perhaps you will figure out a way to rhetoricize your way out of these scenarios, but ultimately, in your view of the world, everybody loses.

One has many reasonable options to avoid a birth. First, there's abstinence, there's the pills and plastic, as well, there are surgical procedures to tie off tubes, and a little snip and tuck there. Voila, avoiding birth. If you don't want kids, don't tempt fate.

Whereas I don't even think it should be an option, or last resort, as you put it. The facts are thousands of teens use abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, and still go on withtheir lifestyle, namely fucking around, without protection. They always have the choice of abortion if it happens. If they didn't have that choice, maybe they would take more precautions...

No harm, no foul.

Because the responsible decision is to not have sex if you don't want to deal with the consequences. The responsible decision is to make sure that your life is ready when and if you want to have kids. You make these decisions ahead of time. You prepare yourself for your future, you do not live in the now, and deal with things when they come.

How did our parents do it? And our grandparents? And on and on. During the Depression there was no economic stability anywhere, and yet people still had kids. When they did, they worked harder to make ends meet, and provide for the family.

I'm at risk of dying every single morning that I wake up. I could slip in the tub. I could get in a car accident. Something could fall on me or blow up while I'm at work. Doesn't stop me from waking up in the morning and continuing on with my life. If there is a health risk to do something, you do something to lessen that risk as much as possible. Get her tubes tied. There, no pregnancy, no risk of death during child birth.

If someone were to have a kid, and there was a clear health risk, then certainly, I would certainly see that having an abortion would be necessary. But as well, tubes would be tied, so that anything in the future like that would be prevented.

What did we do before abortion?

If there was no possibility to know about a weak heart in advance, then abortion should be allowed. If, however, she knew she had a weak heart, and did it anyway, without any preventative measures, then suck it up.

Everybody is already losing in "my world". Our society is degrading at an amazing rate, because we live in a generation that wants everything given to them with the minimal amount of work possible. People have no respect for other people, there is no responsibility taken for one's own actions. Because of this, we look to others to provide our easy way outs, so that we can live life in ease.

Life is risk. Without them, it would be dull and boring, and ultimately worthless. But you take those risks and go with them, and see where it leads you. I look at abortion the same as I look at suicide. There is no reason to. Suicide is a cop out, and I have no respect for anyone who would choose it as a viable alternative to living. Abortion is the easy way out for too many people out there, so that they can go ahead and live their life the same way, without repercutions. It's not a "choice" that should be allowed, unless in the most extreme of circumstances.

They wouldn't. Teens love to fuck. They're developing and horny, and no amount of risk involved with sex is going to stop them. It was just as bad with our parent's generation as it is with ours.

Teen pregnancy is mostly an issue of ignorance, because our sexual education is highly inadequate, and access to contraceptives is limited, at best. It's easy to preach responsibility an acting grown up to a group of people that aren't considered to be legal adults.

Because abstinence or the proper use of birthcontrol is responsible, that does not invalidate the election to have an abortion as a responsible decision. That's the same reasoning as saying it's responsible to maintain a strong military, but that we should never use it.

They did it because they wanted their kids. They fucked like rabbits because they wanted kids. If a woman considers having an abortion, the first thing on her mind is always "Do I want this baby?" We are asssuming that she has elected, no, she does not want it. The reasonings behind that decision are myriad, and indeterminable, but if they are for certain reasons, such as the one considered above, I'd call it fairly responsible.

If you want to avoid the risk in driving, you don't drive. If you want to avoid the risk in waking up in every morning, then you'd probably elect not to wake up, which is comedy. You have the freedoms to choose how you lead your life, and you elect to risk your life every day when you drive. In having an abortion, a woman's risk is averted, much like how you'd avert the risk of driving by taking public transit.

Infanticide. Then abortion.

If the child was wanted, the birth would be forced. If the child wasn't wanted, then people would find a back alley quack to perform a coat hanger abortion, or fly their children to some European country to have the operation performed.

Before we developed the tools and sterility necessary for abortions, ancient man practiced infanticide when the tribe could not afford to raise a new child. This may have eventually been justified in sacrifice to gods as man developed more advanced moral reasoning, but where the practice of infanticide ends, and abortion begins is probably impossible to determine, since they've always been considered necessary taboos, much like sex itself.

But what if she used a contraceptive and still got pregnant? There's no way to determine if it was used correctly, and yet she still took the precautions necessary to avoid pregnancy. Therefore, your recourse is to not have the abortion to begin with, since the only supposedly responsible decision is not to have sex.

Consider this, however. If there was no way to know about a person's particular health risks going into a pregnancy, then why even allow health-related abortions in the first place? The woman will give birth and die, or not, and nobody would be any the wiser that her heart was too big, or whatever.

So you can either have abortions for everybody, or abortions for none. Pick and choose, you can't rationalize around your base reasoning.

And how many people do you know that live like this? If the current generation was honestly as bad as you claim it to be, then why hasn't the economy bottomed out of itself?

I see you've elected for no abortions. You are done in this thread, further discussion is pointless.

Teen pregnancy rates haven't been this low since the 1940's. At least in America. We all have abstinence to thank for that.... and oral sex. The teen pregnancy issue is completely overblown. The only generation that has a right to judge today's teenagers is their grandparents.

Sarcasm, Dev.

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?

The logic isn't interesting, it's vile and wholly selfish.

Double Post:
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:
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.

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

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

Er, not really. There is a passage that people use to support their anti-abortion opinions, but it doesn't say anything like that.

This seems to imply that killing a fetus is the same thing as killing a person.

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

Clearly the fetus.

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?

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:
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".

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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?

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

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.)

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.

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.

It doesn't really qualify it as a person, so much as it qualifies it as the property of the father.

If it were property, it would be the equivalent of a slave and killing it would not result in death.

But it isn't the father who has destroyed his own property. In this case, it was the inadvertent actions of another man who has no claim to either the wife, or the fetus.

This also brings up another problem. Does the law regarding the beating of a slave to death apply to the slave owner? It doesn't really specify.

You don't get the death penalty for killing a slave whether it's yours or not. If someone kills your slave, he has to pay you for it. If you kill a fetus, you don't have to pay for it - you die. That seems to put it on the level of a person.

So God loves slavery.

Being that I haven't studied this stuff extensively and I certainly don't have the unquestionable knowledge of the Bible that Minon has, I have to ask, what's God's view on killing someone with their own consent?

I'd also like to make note that the passage says it makes her give birth prematurely. Is it possible to have premature birth six months in advance (or, in the case of the morning-after pill, eight hours after conception)?

I'm not sure about premature births, but I don't see anything wrong with the morning after pill. I guess since a dead fetus isn't technically born, the rule probably applies to all dead fetuses.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. And the point I'm trying to make doesn't take a biblical scholar to show.

Okay, here's how I feel on the issue. Keep in mind that I have actually had an abortion (and no woman should be ashamed of what she does), so I a bit of personal experience here.

If the pregnancy is a result of casual sex, or the man involved really has no stake in any sort of relationship with a woman, than the decision on whether or not to abort should be up to the woman, period.

If, however, the pregnancy occurs in a marriage, and the husband is the biological father, then I do believe that the decision should legally be up to both the man and the woman.

Some may wonder what the difference is . . . Well, while I will never have a husband (and may never even get married), I do believe that marriage means something. I believe that if a woman does get married (to a man or a woman), all decisions regarding either must be made together. Marriage is not just two individuals, it's one whole unit. This has nothing to do with religion (I'm Atheist) or tradition (I think tradition is a joke), this just has to do with the fact that marriage should be more than just words, it should be actions.

I've read most of Shakespere's tragedies, and a handful of his comedies. Nevertheless, common sense says there's a world of difference between a book that governs the religious and political beliefs of a huge portion of the world, a book that was written from many different people and taken from two thousand years ago, a book written in an entirely different language and of which no "original" scripts survive today, and entertainment plays written 500 years ago and which largely define the way we spell words today.

You're hilarious if you think there's anything other than superficial similarities between the two. No one opposes abortion because Shakespere was against it, dipwad.

Double Post:
Then what happens when they disagree?

Double Post:
Looking closer, it doesn't even say that in your outdated law quote. It says the eye for the eye law is if any injury further than what caused the miscarriage should be visited on the agressor; that is, if the woman is killed, then so should her assailant. The only punishment the assailant faces if the woman miscarries but is otherwise uninjured is what the husband requests and if the judges agree.

And even that only applies if the dumb bitch gets between her man and the assailant fighting. It says nothing about consentual abortion at all.

Christ, that teaches me to skim your posts.

That's because it's part of the context. I guess you started skimming my posts early.

They're both cornerstones of western literature, they're the two literary works most often alluded to in western literature, they are both often misunderstood by people who read them and, by the way, it is debatable whether or not "shakespeare" actually wrote all of what we attribute to him. It is very well possible that it was multiple writers working together. As a matter of fact, a lot of writers have taken their moral cues, or backed their morals up, with what Shakespeare said.

But that's not important. The point I was making (which still stands) is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and you either don't want to know or you're just being persistent and dense for the hell of it. Either way, going back and forth with you over it is a waste of time.

Repetition is often used in writing, and in teaching. The Bible is trying to teach is it not?

And in no way was I trying to imply that you were some religious idiot. But the fact remains that one can read what wish to see into that passage. Seems hard to tell what would be the 'correct' interpretation. This applies equaly to your interpretation as it does to Bradylama's or a Lurker's.

To be honest, I can't really make an accurrate interpretation. Looking at it from a modern perspective, as its language is far too ambiguous.

Perhaps if I was looking at it from the perspective of a Jew wandering in the Sinai I'd understand, but I'm afraid that's beyond my capabilities.

CAN WE JUST SAY THAT MINION ISN'T ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THE BIBLE

CAN WE DO THAT

Look, we can compromise, let's all sit in a circle, ok? The person to our right chooses something we're not allowed to talk about, and then we choose for the person on our left, and so on! It'll be fun!

Ok, Minion, why don't you choose something Brady isn't allowed to talk about? And then Brady can choose for Squirrel, and Squirrel can choose for, say, Pug (If I may suggest something, "everything" is a good choice there).

Come on guys it'll be fun like summer camp wooooo~

No, it really isn't. The passage is clearly talking about the woman's injuries; it's hard to take tooth for a tooth from the injuries of a newborn who has no teeth.

you're a reasonably religious fellow, as far as fellows go anyway, and you're telling me that Shakespeare is at all similar on magnitude as the Word Of God Made Flesh (as you believe).

Dumb cunt.

Repeating that I don't know what I'm talking about will only work if no one read your post, or most of your posts in general.

So you might have a chance there.

Still isn't true though.

Double Post:
According to King James, it's not "child born prematurely", it's miscarriage. It's easy to forget, but both amounted to the same thing until very recently. Perhaps the law should be updated. If only we had some way of updating existing laws and creating new laws as society changes and adapts?

what I am trying to say is appealing to the bible for modern-day laws is stupid

minion

you do not believe in evolution

educated retarded

Wow. An amazing amount of hostility coming my way recently. Not sure why that is though.

Personally I like to read Minion's posts on religious topics. A great insight for those who share those views.

Luerker:
I don't think that Minion is equating the Bible to Shakespeare in the way that you are thinking. He is referring to the fact that these 2 collections have had a significant impact upon the formation of the modern English language. To interpret further than that would be just dumb, as that is clearly all he intended to say.

How did the bible impact modern english language?

Hey lurker - is it fun getting away with trolling all the time because you're popular? That must be awesome. Especially when you, ironically, called the thread starter a troll a little while back.


I'll reply to one of your points, since the rest are just tedious trolling attempts.

They mention "tooth for a tooth" because it's a reiteration of the eye for an eye law. Repitition is used in the Bible to emphasize points frequently (and before you open your mouth, note the difference between repetition and redundancy - redundancy is stating the same point and passing it off as a different one ie, that law as you are interpreting it, whereas repetition is a literary tool often imployed for the sake of reinforcement).

And by the way, if you're getting your information from the KJV, you're just complicating the issue. That translation is a piece of shit.


Oh and, in case you're interested (who the fuck am I kidding?) the "word of God made flesh" is Jesus, not the Bible.

I'm not trolling. I'm insulting you a lot, but I have a logical point and I'm not arguing with you to start a fight on the boards.

Becides, I don't think much will come of it. You think the quoted law is extracting vengeance for the "premature" fetus and says nothing about the woman. In fact you think premature fetopodes* are at all likely to survive in biblical times. That takes a certain amount of gullibility that I hope the rest of the readers don't have.

Meanwhile I believed gohan believed what he was talking about but nevermind that

The Word Of God Made Paper sounds less interesting to me, but if that's what you want. You're still reading something that isn't there.

* the new fetii.

The bible was the chief study material for all scholars and university students. Basically, all the smart people built upon the bible for their studies.
It was also the most printed and distributed book in the western world, English speaking nations no exception.
The first dictionary, by Webster, was built upon biblical passages for examples and clarification of definitions.

All I wanted to say was that that is the passage which is used to justify the belief that a fetus counts as a person. No Christian who knows his ass from his elbow treats Mosaic Law as actual valid law today. I mean, thats like one of the first things you should learn as a Christian.

You know minion, I have not followed this thread TOO closely, but I am awfully confused what your real stance is on abortion, and related topics. ;_;

I think it's something society allowed because after the 60s no one was going to even consider abstainence. That being said, I find it tragic, even when necessary and necessary only when the mother could die.

Minion doesn't need compliments from me. And it in no way implies that I regard him as an expert on the matter. But if we look at this example, it shows how those pro-lifers which argue this point, with this passage do so. Until someone presents a new point, then this is *the* Biblical refference which can be used to back up their stance.

You needn't agree with a person to be entertained or interested in their perspective. Otherwise, what would anyone be doing in PP other than patting each other on the back for like-mindedness? I took exception to the idea that those with valid, or even semi-valid points shouldn't be expressing them here.

You know me for five years and still put the 'g' there? How could you A Lurker. ;_;

I wasn't aware that hippies had lots of abortions. I thought they were all about respect for all living things, letting their kids run naked in their communes, and all of that crap.

Yeah except fetuses aren't alive so, no biggie, right?

Actually, I read Lewis Black's autobiography and he grew up during the 60s. He said hippies used to start collections to send a women to another country to get it done.

I think us men should have the right to refuse child support... maybe before the child is born or something.

Sure women assume all the risk and responsibility from a pregnancy, but does that really give them the RIGHT to place a financial obligation on a man? What in the hell?!

One could argue "what about the welfare of the child?" Well I think that a man should be able to deny child support. The woman STILL has a choice: bring a child into the world knowing she will probably not be able to provide everything he/she needs, or abort the pregnancy.

I'm sorry, but, even considering the risks and responsibilities involved with pregnancy, it's just fundamentally wrong for women to have reproductive rights and choices so far exceeding those of men.

I don't think it's clear whether the Exodus 21 verses pertain to the child getting damaged or the woman. It could go either way, but I think it more likely concerns damage to the mother.

The pro-mother damage interpretation is that if the woman is only damaged to the extent of giving a premature birth, it's OK, but if it's further damage you must take vengence.

The verse reads (NIV) "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender...." The problem with interpreting this verse as fetus-damage is that the fetus isn't even mentioned in this verse as noun. It only speaks of the woman giving a premature birth, which is a verb applying to the woman. Therefore, trying to apply "serious injury" to a subject that doesn't appear in the sentence is unlikely.

I agree that the analogies used (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) are done for the sake of repetition, but it also lends weight to the argument that it's damage against the woman. This is because we're talking about reciprocating damage to an exact degree. If it's damaging a fetus, how are you even going to be able to tell which parts were damanged in order for it to be reciprocated? This is a poor set of visuals if it's trying to associate itself with fetus damage, and makes more sense in the context of adult damage.

And even if it's all talking about fetus damage, it doesn't say what stage, so I say it only applies to late-stage abortions :-P

Let's be honest, here. The woman is the one who will ultimately bear the responsibility for the child, so it makes sense that she would have rights and choices equal to her level of responsibility. Men have the option of just walking away if they want to. It happens all the time. Women do too (I guess), but how often do you really hear about a woman abandoning her child? It's far more rare for women to do this - almost unheard of - and everyone knows it.

Women don't abandon their children; they kill them.

There is no such thing as SIDS - it is only a name that doctors made up because so many women have suffered from post-partum depression and smothered their babies in their sleep and a strangled baby's corpse shows very few if any of the signs of suffocation that an adult corpse does.

Anyway, your argument is null. You're being as sexist and prejudiced as the court - assuming point blank that all men are irresponsible.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?!

I can't even respond to that, it's so retarded. I have now officially deemed you not worth my time. Have a nice life.

Why would I be kidding you? I have at least that much respect.

Well, I did before you made this childish post.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Have a nice life indeed, ma'am.

I'm going to have to ask you to provide some sort of evidence to back this assertion up.

About SIDS not existing? You know it's much harder to prove that something doesn't exist than it is to prove that something does exist. But the absolute lack of any clinical definition for SIDS speaks for itself. It is best described only as "any sudden and unexplained death of an apparently healthy infant aged one month to one year." (Wikipedia.

As for women killing their children, there is a very good article in Psychology Today titled "Moms Who Kill". I suggest you read it.

This is what could be called a dodge. You asserted that SIDS doesn't actually exist and was invented to cover mothers killing their children. You were then asked to provide proof to back that assertion up, you failed to do so, saying that it's harder to prove something doesn't exist than that it does. This ignores your specific assertion as to SIDS not existing and what it really is.

Which, I repeat, you have provided no evidence to support.

I trust you'll be willing to provide the issue of Psychology Today that this very good article was published in, so I can read it like you suggest.

Here you go Styphon.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...02-000001.html

I don't think so either.
A link was asked for, and I was already familiar with the site, so I satisfied the demand.

However, I think that somehow, he is trying to say that this should be enough explanation for why babies die, without the need to invent another disorder, syndrome, or disease.

No, but how conveniently we all forget that it started with Alice labelling all men as irresponsible.

I don't need to. I've made my case well enough, which is that women are not more able and responsible than men to care for a child.

My argument isn't totally serious, either. I don't waste good arguments against stupidity like hers.

And still, you're antagonizing me over it. Follow your own good advice, why don't you.

ArrowHead: SIDS doesn't exist. It's just something doctors made up to cover up mothers killing their own babies.

I call bullshit. Evidence, please.

ArrowHead: Well, I can't exactly provide any, but I'm still right. In the meantime, here's a psychology article about postpartum psychosis.

This article doesn't support your argument about SIDS being made up at all.

ArrowHead: I WAZ JUST JOEKING LOLZ

Seriously, if this is all you have for us, don't bother. You're just wasting our time.

So you're saying that because some women kill their children, all women should not be trusted more than men with children?

"Some men molest little boys and girls, thus all men are not to be trusted with little boys and girls."

a) From what I've seen you've been the only one who's made stupid statements, or at the very least has made the stupidest statement in this thread.

b) You don't fuck around in PP (or in debates PERIOD) because you are ALWAYS taken seriously. =\

Who's wasting whose time? You're the ones having a circle jerk over it. This discussion is over.

Simply saying that men are more prone to walking out on the mother with child is an incomplete assumption. I'm sure that situation has a very strong correlation with living in a low socio-economic level.

I was just speaking my mind. Nobody had a problem with it except for Alice.

I have a problem with the fact that you've read a couple of articles (which, by the way, do NOT support your assertion that SIDS isn't a legitimate disorder) and drew your own screwed-up conclusion and stated it here as fact.

I happen to know a few women whose babies died from SIDS and what you're claiming is unthinkable to me. Some of these women had other children - before and after - and were excellent mothers. One woman I know almost didn't survive herself after her infant died (presumably from SIDS). I also know of two people whose babies almost died of SIDS, but they were discovered in time to save them and both babies wore monitors thereafter that would alert the parents any time the condition started to happen again (which it did, in both cases).

What you said is ridiculous and we all know it. They haven't completely figured SIDS out, but there have definitely been advances, such as the monitor I mentioned. Also, studies that show that there's a 12.9 times higher risk of death when babies sleep on their stomachs instead of on their backs.

Now prove that what you said wasn't some temper tantrum outburst brought on by the fact that I said more men abandon their children than women, or GTFO.

And here I was thinking that I wasn't worth your time. :dopey_love:

You GTFO, smacktard. And take your bukkake party guests with you.

Now let's let the thread get back on topic or die in with a little dignity.

It had been dying with dignity, but you came and revived it to start shit.

Now, stop flaming, trolling and spamming in Political. Not to mention member-moderating. If that's too much for you to do, leave Political. If both of these things are too much for you to do, you'll be banned from GFF for a week and from Political entirely. This is your first official warning.

Heh, once again, a thread should have ended with SS's first post in it. =p

now close it ?