Male Reproductive Rights

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

Amen brother. I'm shocked by how many showing broads wear stomach-showing shirts. YOUR NAVEL IS DETRIMENTAL TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE

I think a lot of people in this thread are forgetting that there is a third party that is completely innocent of any bad things the father and the mother did. Why should the child be punished because the father didn't want the kid?

Similarially, can you with any conscience say that the woman should be forced to abort the child?

And ultimately, because it needs to be brought up, do you really aim to tell me that the system in place as it is now is less open to abuse than a system that allows fathers to metaphorically abort their children?

if you answer yes to that last one you are intellecutally bankrupt.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Minion

Failing that, they should have the right to choose not to support the child.

Who will pick up the slack on the father's child support, then? The state? Good intentions? Nobody?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Metal Sphere

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Minion

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?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Minion

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Gohan1983

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Gohan1983

But a man should have every right that a woman has in the matter of abortion.

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

Double Post:

Originally Posted by CloudNine

Why should a woman be able to force a man into a situation that he does not want to partake in, but a man cannot do the same in the opposite situation? Sure, the man doesn't have to suffer the pain of carrying a baby, but he does have to carry the financial burden for the rest of his life.

Why should the woman be able to control everything and force something from a mistake that she herself helped create? Not that I would just leave a woman in this situation, but why shouldn't the law fair to all parties involved when the mistake was not the fault of a single party?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Okay, but you weren't the only one calling for abstinence.

RETRACTED FOR YOU.

There are of course situations where one or the other changes his or her mind when the pregnancy scare is upon them, as well as liars, but NEVERMIND THAT.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Gohan1983

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

I cannot believe it took me this long to catch on to your troll. Fuck you.

no scalia love?

FELIPE NO

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:

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:

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.

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

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:

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".

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

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

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:

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

Then what happens when they disagree?

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Minion

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Minion

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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

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

Quote:

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

I know you meant this as a compliment, but it's essentially meaningless. He - well, he thinks shakespeare is in par with the bible. I just can't get over that, sorry. It's too hilarious. At any rate, he's no expert on the bible if he can misinterpret a passage so obvious even I can see through it. I'm sure he read it many more times I have, but there's more than just the bible when it comes to being a theologian.

That's like me idolizing Racing because he brings insight into physics, or Styphon becuase he pioneers sourpussdom.

I was speaking idiomatically.

How did the bible impact modern english language?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO