Male Reproductive Rights

Originally Posted by Minion

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!

Repetition is often used in writing, and in teaching. The Bible is trying to teach is it not?

And in no way was I trying to imply that you were some religious idiot. But the fact remains that one can read what wish to see into that passage. Seems hard to tell what would be the 'correct' interpretation. This applies equaly to your interpretation as it does to Bradylama's or a Lurker's.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

Perhaps if I was looking at it from the perspective of a Jew wandering in the Sinai I'd understand, but I'm afraid that's beyond my capabilities.

FELIPE NO

CAN WE JUST SAY THAT MINION ISN'T ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THE BIBLE

CAN WE DO THAT

Look, we can compromise, let's all sit in a circle, ok? The person to our right chooses something we're not allowed to talk about, and then we choose for the person on our left, and so on! It'll be fun!

Ok, Minion, why don't you choose something Brady isn't allowed to talk about? And then Brady can choose for Squirrel, and Squirrel can choose for, say, Pug (If I may suggest something, "everything" is a good choice there).

Come on guys it'll be fun like summer camp wooooo~

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

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

CAN WE JUST SAY THAT MINION ISN'T ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THE BIBLE

CAN WE DO THAT

Look, we can compromise, let's all sit in a circle, ok? The person to our right chooses something we're not allowed to talk about, and then we choose for the person on our left, and so on! It'll be fun!

Ok, Minion, why don't you choose something Brady isn't allowed to talk about? And then Brady can choose for Squirrel, and Squirrel can choose for, say, Pug (If I may suggest something, "everything" is a good choice there).

Come on guys it'll be fun like summer camp wooooo~

Wow. An amazing amount of hostility coming my way recently. Not sure why that is though.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Luerker:
I don't think that Minion is equating the Bible to Shakespeare in the way that you are thinking. He is referring to the fact that these 2 collections have had a significant impact upon the formation of the modern English language. To interpret further than that would be just dumb, as that is clearly all he intended to say.

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

How did the bible impact modern english language?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

How did the bible impact modern english language?

The bible was the chief study material for all scholars and university students. Basically, all the smart people built upon the bible for their studies.
It was also the most printed and distributed book in the western world, English speaking nations no exception.
The first dictionary, by Webster, was built upon biblical passages for examples and clarification of definitions.

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

All I wanted to say was that that is the passage which is used to justify the belief that a fetus counts as a person. No Christian who knows his ass from his elbow treats Mosaic Law as actual valid law today. I mean, thats like one of the first things you should learn as a Christian.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You know minion, I have not followed this thread TOO closely, but I am awfully confused what your real stance is on abortion, and related topics. ;_;

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I think it's something society allowed because after the 60s no one was going to even consider abstainence. That being said, I find it tragic, even when necessary and necessary only when the mother could die.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

Minion doesn't need compliments from me. And it in no way implies that I regard him as an expert on the matter. But if we look at this example, it shows how those pro-lifers which argue this point, with this passage do so. Until someone presents a new point, then this is *the* Biblical refference which can be used to back up their stance.

You needn't agree with a person to be entertained or interested in their perspective. Otherwise, what would anyone be doing in PP other than patting each other on the back for like-mindedness? I took exception to the idea that those with valid, or even semi-valid points shouldn't be expressing them here.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

You know me for five years and still put the 'g' there? How could you A Lurker. ;_;

Originally Posted by Minion

I think it's something society allowed because after the 60s no one was going to even consider abstainence. That being said, I find it tragic, even when necessary and necessary only when the mother could die.

I wasn't aware that hippies had lots of abortions. I thought they were all about respect for all living things, letting their kids run naked in their communes, and all of that crap.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yeah except fetuses aren't alive so, no biggie, right?

Actually, I read Lewis Black's autobiography and he grew up during the 60s. He said hippies used to start collections to send a women to another country to get it done.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think us men should have the right to refuse child support... maybe before the child is born or something.

Sure women assume all the risk and responsibility from a pregnancy, but does that really give them the RIGHT to place a financial obligation on a man? What in the hell?!

One could argue "what about the welfare of the child?" Well I think that a man should be able to deny child support. The woman STILL has a choice: bring a child into the world knowing she will probably not be able to provide everything he/she needs, or abort the pregnancy.

I'm sorry, but, even considering the risks and responsibilities involved with pregnancy, it's just fundamentally wrong for women to have reproductive rights and choices so far exceeding those of men.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

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

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

I I'm sorry, but, even considering the risks and responsibilities involved with pregnancy, it's just fundamentally wrong for women to have reproductive rights and choices so far exceeding those of men.

Let's be honest, here. The woman is the one who will ultimately bear the responsibility for the child, so it makes sense that she would have rights and choices equal to her level of responsibility. Men have the option of just walking away if they want to. It happens all the time. Women do too (I guess), but how often do you really hear about a woman abandoning her child? It's far more rare for women to do this - almost unheard of - and everyone knows it.

How ya doing, buddy?

Women don't abandon their children; they kill them.

There is no such thing as SIDS - it is only a name that doctors made up because so many women have suffered from post-partum depression and smothered their babies in their sleep and a strangled baby's corpse shows very few if any of the signs of suffocation that an adult corpse does.

Anyway, your argument is null. You're being as sexist and prejudiced as the court - assuming point blank that all men are irresponsible.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Women don't absondon their children; they kill them.

There is no such thing as SIDS - it is only a name that doctors made up because so many women have suffered from post-partum depression and smothered their babies in their sleep and a strangled baby's corpse shows very few if any of the signs of suffocation that an adult corpse does.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?!

I can't even respond to that, it's so retarded. I have now officially deemed you not worth my time. Have a nice life.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?!

I can't even respond to that, it's so retarded. I have now officially deemed you not worth my time. Have a nice life.

Why would I be kidding you? I have at least that much respect.

Well, I did before you made this childish post.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Have a nice life indeed, ma'am.

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

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Women don't absondon their children; they kill them.

There is no such thing as SIDS - it is only a name that doctors made up because so many women have suffered from post-partum depression and smothered their babies in their sleep and a strangled baby's corpse shows very few if any of the signs of suffocation that an adult corpse does.

I'm going to have to ask you to provide some sort of evidence to back this assertion up.

I was speaking idiomatically.

About SIDS not existing? You know it's much harder to prove that something doesn't exist than it is to prove that something does exist. But the absolute lack of any clinical definition for SIDS speaks for itself. It is best described only as "any sudden and unexplained death of an apparently healthy infant aged one month to one year." (Wikipedia.

As for women killing their children, there is a very good article in Psychology Today titled "Moms Who Kill". I suggest you read it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?