Male Reproductive Rights

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Clearly, being distant and unwanted by your father is already not in the best interest for a child,

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Clearly the fetus.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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?

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Looking closer, it doesn't even say that in your outdated law quote.

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

Quote:

You're hilarious if you think there's anything other than superficial similarities between the two.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.