Male Reproductive Rights

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.