Male Reproductive Rights

Originally Posted by Watts

Teen pregnancy rates haven't been this low since the 1940's. At least in America. We all have abstinence to thank for that.... and oral sex. The teen pregnancy issue is completely overblown. The only generation that has a right to judge today's teenagers is their grandparents.

Actually they might be using condoms and more mothers might be putting their girls on birth control, saying it's an "acne" medicine.

Sarcasm, Dev.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Sarcasm, Dev.

Oh snap

Sorry Watts

Originally Posted by Devo

more mothers might be putting their girls on birth control, saying it's an "acne" medicine.

ahahah!!! I almost fell outta my chair laughing at that.

Originally Posted by Devo

Oh snap

Sorry Watts

Yeah it's okay.... but that was pretty funny. Possibly true. Anything's possible

Quote:

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.

Er, not really. There is a passage that people use to support their anti-abortion opinions, but it doesn't say anything like that.

Quote:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." --Exodus 21:22-25

This seems to imply that killing a fetus is the same thing as killing a person.

But is the passage talking about the damage made to the fetus, or to the mother?

Clearly the fetus.

No, it's not clear at all. The passage only gives mention of the premature birthing, but no indication that a child has been damaged at all. Then it makes a general reference to the rule of an eye for an eye. Since it is the husband that has to sue for the damages, the assumtion is being made that the wife is incapable of such duties, which to me, implies damage to his pregnant wife.

What would be more important at this point, the baby or the baby factory?

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.

It talks about injury in the same sentence that it mentions premature birth. How could it be anymore clear?

Like you said, there is already the eye for an eye rule. Why would they reiterate it for a pregnant woman?

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?

That passage doesn't seem to have a whole lot to say about consentual punching of a woman in the stomach, though.

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.

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".

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?

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.

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

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