|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
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? I was speaking idiomatically. |
That passage doesn't seem to have a whole lot to say about consentual punching of a woman in the stomach, though.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Most amazing jew boots
Last edited by lordjames; Mar 12, 2006 at 08:25 PM.
|
Really, it's not very clear at all. Double Post:
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". What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Last edited by Sarag; Mar 13, 2006 at 12:40 AM.
Reason: Automerged double post.
|
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
he was a dirty old man though This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
As if you could say whether or not a comparison is possible. How much of either have you honestly read?
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
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. I was speaking idiomatically.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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?
Most amazing jew boots |
I'm gonna go with your complete ignorance of the context, which is usually the case when it comes to Bible interpretation.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
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.)
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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. There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by Bradylama; Mar 13, 2006 at 03:52 PM.
|
The context would be the entire mosaic law. Not sure you want me to post that.
I'm not suggesting that the law still be followed, but what I AM saying is that it seems to indicate that according to the Bible, the fetus has the same rights as a person. It is considered a valid party according to the eye for an eye law. If it weren't, it would be the equivalent of a slave or something and damage done to it would not result in the same damage done back to the perpetrator. This, I think, justifies the belief that the Abrahamic God is against abortion. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
It doesn't really qualify it as a person, so much as it qualifies it as the property of the father.
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. |
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. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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.
FELIPE NO |
So God loves slavery.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
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)? Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
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. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
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:
Double Post:
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. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Last edited by Sarag; Mar 14, 2006 at 12:58 AM.
Reason: Automerged double post.
|
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. I was speaking idiomatically.
Last edited by Minion; Mar 14, 2006 at 05:46 AM.
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tories want new US-Style Bill of Rights | Robo Jesus | Political Palace | 4 | Jul 3, 2006 04:44 AM |