FDA Lowers Age for Next-Day Birth Control (Page 5)

I am so happy that a woman is bringing up this perspective because every time I do I seem to get yelled at and no one answers, as though it shouldn't even be discussed..

That's what I'm saying........I think.

That is because it is a very inconvenient question but you cannot have your cake and eat it to.  You cannot say the decisions are all mine but the responsibility is shared.

Look at the post right below the one I'm quoting and this is the reason why I don't participate in "these" types of threads. 

Am I the only one admitting to scrolling up to make sure it wasn't me?

phew!

I knew it wasn't me, I took the morning-after posting pill.

that would sell better than the morning after pill for college students and professional athletes.

I just know that I took a second Concerta, because one just hasn't been working the ADHD symptoms.

This usually means that my inadvertent, offensive comment ratios are on the rise.

Not necessary.  I have a very close relationship with my parents and have all through my life.  I was raped at 16 (no alcohol was involved, thank you very much Judgy McJudgy) and I never told them.  What was I going to say?  The valedictorian of my high school used me like a tissue?  And who would of believed me?  I wish that Plan B was on the market back then, it would of made the situation much easier. 

I did too, and it was me.    OK a response to me 

Trouble maker!!

It was you.....deal with it.

This discussion for me is where it gets complex as well.  Yes I'm a guy and no I could care a less what women do with their bodies.  I however, do care what they do with the baby that was conceived with another person that is currently residing inside their body.  Now obviously they are biologically attached so it's not as cut and dry as that.

From a moral standpoint I feel very strongly that the father should have an equal say in what happens to the baby.  If I'm 17, or 30 and I get somebody pregnant and she wants to have an abortion I have no legal right to save my potential childs life.  That bothers me a lot.  Even if I agree 100% to take over all custody and require zero financially from the mother I have no choice in the matter.

Now lets flip the coin where the mother absolutely wants to keep the baby but the father wants her to get an abortion.  He is on the hook for 18 years+ of child support and all of the other responsibilities associated with having a child and he doesn't want to "ruin his life" because of a "mistake".  In this case the mother has all the power and has the baby.

The other side of this is the actual baby itself.  I know legally a baby gains civil rights in the US at birth, but there are many scenarios where the baby does have rights.  I mentioned in another thread that in several states if you accidentally kill an unborn child due to negligence you commit manslaughter.
For me, the civil rights argument holds the strongest weight in the third trimester when the baby is viable outside of the womb.  There's obviously no biological difference between a baby the day before it's born and the day after it's born other than the environment it's sitting in.

I am a strong proponent of civil rights for everyone, and most especially for the weakest among us.  Legally, I feel unborn baby's (especially in the 3rd trimester) should be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, I am a christian but everything I said above has absolutely nothing to do with the bible or my religion.  I've held these beliefs my entire life of which many years was an outspoken atheist.

I'm still holding out hope that Lisa's not offended by me.  Please don't burst my bubble.

LOL.  Irony.

No my friend, I don't think I'm mistaken.  Perhaps we have an honest disagreement.

You're right, at the time of these events there was no Catholic Church.

Putting aside Luke who was a gentile, Matthew as a Jew writing for Jews.  He writes that Joseph and Mary were betrothed. He was going to divorce Mary quietly to save her from being stoned, but after the angel Gabriel comes to him, he takes Mary into his home and they live a marital life.

That doesn't necessarily mean they had sexual intercourse.

The most controversion line of scripture from Matthew is 1:25
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

The translation of "until" could mean they had relations after the birth or it could mean more of a sense of "during this time through the birth".

I don't know if you're Jewish, but if so and want to claim that their marriage wasn't legal, then go ahead.  The tradition in both Eastern and Western Church's for two thousand years is that the marriage was legal and that Mary was perpetually a virgin.

--------------

Now to speak to this question of male opinions on the subject of what happens during pregnancy, I think it's worthwhile to look at the life of Joseph.

Here was a man whose wife (they were betrothed) comes to him one day and tells him that she's pregnant and that it's God's son.

His natural instinct is to want to put her away.  

Instead though, he takes on the responsibility of fatherhood and raises this child.  Joseph was from the house of David, and now so is Jesus.

If only we taught our young boys and men this kind of paternal responsibility.  

Two things would happen. First, they would treat women better. They would not be looking to use woman or to see them as objects.

Second, they would step up their paternal responsibility toward their children.

The story of Joseph is really valuable in teaching these virtues.

Because there is no legal way to force a woman to have a baby she does not want, nor should there be. You simply can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not want to. We can all agree it sucks if that's what we do, but that's about it. It is what it is.

m-m-must avoid temptation to share the dating practices of the different women of the different religions mentioned in this thread. Even if a ban would improve work productivity.... this is not TAN....

I am jewish, and you can't read something with your modern day filter. you have to read it from the perspective of the writer. Under Jewish law a man and woman are not allowed allowed to sleep under the same roof while betrothed. At that point the woman is in a kind of limbo, she is promised to be married, so therefore sleeping with another man would have been considered adultery, but the marriage rite has not been completed, so she cannot sleep with the man to whom she is betrothed.  So when it is written, that Joseph takes Mary into his home, it means they MUST have completed the marriage contract, otherwise she would not have been allowed in his home. To have completed the marriage contract, they MUST have consummated the marriage. So there, your author matthew tells us that they have had sex, without being so crude in his words.

Was Mary close with her parents?

I agree with you that there's no legal way.  I think if the baby somehow grew in an egg that was separate from both the mom and the dad then there would be an easy legal argument, but the whole biological connection is obviously what makes it not as cut and dry, as I mentioned.

The custody and financial issues are not the only considerations. Carrying a pregnancy is a significant physical undertaking, and the woman is the one assuming all of the health risks, changes, discomfort, disruption, etc. associated with being pregnant and delivering a baby. No one should have the right to force a woman to go through that if she doesn't want to.