Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

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).


Male Reproductive Rights
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 12:36 PM Local time: Mar 12, 2006, 12:36 PM #101 of 178
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.
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 07:05 PM Local time: Mar 12, 2006, 05:05 PM #102 of 178
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?
lordjames
Carob Nut


Member 1690

Level 5.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 08:07 PM #103 of 178
Originally Posted by a lurker
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?
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.

Originally Posted by a lurker
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.
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.

Originally Posted by a lurker
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.
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.

Originally Posted by a lurker
The logic isn't interesting, it's vile and wholly selfish.
Women ignoring the conditions of the men involved seems awfully selfish and inconsiderate to me.

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

Most amazing jew boots

Last edited by lordjames; Mar 12, 2006 at 08:25 PM.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 12:29 AM #104 of 178
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".


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

Last edited by Sarag; Mar 13, 2006 at 12:40 AM. Reason: Automerged double post.
Chibi Neko
The hell am I doing here?


Member 922

Level 27.65

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 01:01 AM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 02:31 AM #105 of 178
Originally Posted by lordjames
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.
Not an issue of reproductive rights? Are you sure you are in the right thread?

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 08:51 AM #106 of 178
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 12:42 PM #107 of 178
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


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


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 12:55 PM #108 of 178
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?
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 02:05 PM #109 of 178
Originally Posted by Minion
Sure. Nothing is ever clear if you want it to be unclear. I won't sit here and argue with you lot, though.
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.

I was speaking idiomatically.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 02:27 PM #110 of 178
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!

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 03:14 PM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 03:14 PM #111 of 178
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
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 03:33 PM #112 of 178
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?
Secret Squirrel
River Chocobo


Member 89

Level 24.44

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 03:48 PM #113 of 178
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.)

Quote:
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.


Jam it back in, in the dark.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 03:48 PM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 03:48 PM #114 of 178
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.
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:05 PM #115 of 178
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.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:12 PM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 04:12 PM #116 of 178
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?
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:14 PM #117 of 178
If it were property, it would be the equivalent of a slave and killing it would not result in death.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:20 PM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 04:20 PM #118 of 178
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?
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:31 PM #119 of 178
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
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:42 PM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 04:42 PM #120 of 178
So God loves slavery.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:48 PM Local time: Mar 13, 2006, 02:48 PM #121 of 178
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.
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:55 PM #122 of 178
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.
PattyNBK
255% Bitch, 78% Slut


Member 1397

Level 10.92

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 04:58 PM #123 of 178
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.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2006, 12:34 AM #124 of 178
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.


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.
Minion
Retainer


Member 21

Level 28.54

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2006, 05:42 AM #125 of 178
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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Last edited by Minion; Mar 14, 2006 at 05:46 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Male Reproductive Rights

Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.