From: red sox 777 | #198 Let's make this argument a bit clearer. If women are allowed to shoplift from stores, should men be allowed to also? No, of course not.
Actually going to disagree >_<''
If shoplifting is going to be legalized for women it should be legalized for men as well.
I do not think shoplifting should be legalized at all obviously.
JeffreyRaze posted... From: Greyfeld | #192 First, please spell my name right.
Second, I'm trying to make a point about men's rights concerning pregnancy based on the current laws. Circumventing the argument by trying to change the entire framework of the argument isn't constructive or conducive to a civil argument.
If he wants to argue the right/wrong of abortion, that's fine. But that's not what I'm concerned with right now, and if he wants to refute my opinions, he should keep within the framework of the argument, not create his own new argument that has no basis in reality. You're basically declaring the bounds to be what you say they are. He views a man disavowing responsibility of a child to be wrong. The fact that it currently is discriminatory is immaterial, as he isn't arguing for the current situation at all.
It's called planting a red herring. My stance on men's rights is based in current law. Saying, "But if the law was different, you would be wrong," is a huge freaking red herring, and has no business in the argument.
As far as believing that one sex should suffer to the exclusion of the other... that's a type of ****** up that we left behind in the 50's, and have been trying to completely abolish ever since.
red sox 777 posted... Let's make this argument a bit clearer. If women are allowed to shoplift from stores, should men be allowed to also? No, of course not.
Hell yes, they should. It's called equal treatment. Obviously, shoplifting is wrong and shouldn't be legalized to begin with, but you don't make something legal for one side, then say "screw you" to the other.
Forceful_Dragon posted... What he is saying is that "as long as abortions are illegal, then it should work like this to limit the wrong".
It isn't "picking a group" it is simply choosing not to screw over a second group since one is already being screwed over.
The objection I can see is this: it screws over people who won't get an abortion for religious reasons.
Let's say you have two catholics. They are married try for a kid, and she gets pregnant...but then they start arguing and it becomes clear that a divorce is inevitable. The woman doesn't really have an "opt out" button because she is very religious. But now the man does and let's say he does choose to opt out. Now the woman is very screwed. She has to be a single mother and regardless of who has employment she won't get child support.
I mean, I get the concept behind giving the man an "opt out button." He can declare "I won't support it" and then she can just respond "okie dokie abortion time!" But the problem is that this assumes that every woman should be a-ok with having an abortion if the circumstances are wrong. We know that's not true.
The idea is to give women choice, not to force them into a decision because you've put extra legal pressures on them.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
It's not a red herring at all. Even given the current law, we still should not make things worse. Discrimination is wrong mostly because it hurts certain groups of people, not because it makes them unequal.
It seems what you really want to discuss is: what would you think if you thought abortion was moral? If abortion was completely neutral, then I'd agree with you. But that condition has everything to do with my beliefs, and nothing to do with current law.
I'll just say this: the problem with most advocates of prostitution is that they value equality simply for the sake of equality, with seemingly no boundaries. Do you really want to live in a country where our values permit of the exchange of bodies, degrading men and women alike into sex objects? I don't, and I have no problem exchanging a bit of my supposed "freedom" to maintain this social value.
metroid composite posted... Forceful_Dragon posted... What he is saying is that "as long as abortions are illegal, then it should work like this to limit the wrong".
It isn't "picking a group" it is simply choosing not to screw over a second group since one is already being screwed over.
The objection I can see is this: it screws over people who won't get an abortion for religious reasons.
Let's say you have two catholics. They are married try for a kid, and she gets pregnant...but then they start arguing and it becomes clear that a divorce is inevitable. The woman doesn't really have an "opt out" button because she is very religious. But now the man does and let's say he does choose to opt out. Now the woman is very screwed. She has to be a single mother and regardless of who has employment she won't get child support.
I mean, I get the concept behind giving the man an "opt out button." He can declare "I won't support it" and then she can just respond "okie dokie abortion time!" But the problem is that this assumes that every woman should be a-ok with having an abortion if the circumstances are wrong. We know that's not true.
The idea is to give women choice, not to force them into a decision because you've put extra legal pressures on them.
That's what adoption is for. For one of a million reasons, a parent may not be comfortable/able to raise that child, and that's why we have adoption agencies. Her life isn't magically screwed just because the dad doesn't want to fork over money.
In addition, we have government programs to help parents that want to keep their children but don't have the means to support them.
In the grand scheme of things, somebody's always going to find a loophole. But if the father legally ducks out and decides not to help the child, financially, that should be his decision. Just like the mother has the decision of not carrying the child to term if she doesn't want to.
To me this comes down to something very fundamental: no one should have to bear the consequences of a decision they are not responsible for. this hinges upon believing that pregnancy is no longer a natural conclusion of sex. I think that's a safe position to hold because of birth control.
by allowing women complete control over whether the baby is born and requiring something of men if she makes one of the choices, we are creating an unfair system. any freedom women have because of this comes at the cost of a man's freedom. true freedom for a woman should include only her freedom to make decisions that will affect her. that should include associating with people who are likely to stick around and raise the baby if that's what she wants.
JeffreyRaze posted... Well, if you have to option to fight for legalizing male shoplifting, or making female shoplifting illegal, which do you fight for?
Complete red herring.
Shoplifting objectively hurts businesses by depriving them of sales. Abortion is only right or wrong depending on your moral code, and creating laws to hinder it infringes on the rights of women.
this hinges upon believing that pregnancy is no longer a natural conclusion of sex. I think that's a safe position to hold because of birth control.
Except that this is obviously not a safe position to hold, because women are liars. If you're planning to have frivolous sex, use a condom and pull out. What, are you going to argue that it's okay to have sex with minors because "She said she was 18"?
Women can control their bodies, and men can control their own.
Shoplifting objectively hurts businesses by depriving them of sales. Abortion is only right or wrong depending on your moral code, and creating laws to hinder it infringes on the rights of women.
...And hurting businesses is only wrong depending on your moral code. Goes both ways.
If your opinion is that morals and personal opinions have no place in politics, then there's not much to discuss. But in a democracy, they are critical to politics, and they should be. Why do we even care that businesses are hurt by shoplifting? Because we believe in the right to private property. Some people (Communists) don't. It really isn't objective.
I expect men to always use condoms regardless, unless they're looking to have a baby or have complete trust in the person they're sleeping with. I include that as part of birth control. that's some responsibility you have to take for your own situation, especially in the current climate.
To put aside my lengthy response to the position Redsox doesn't really hold, there are a number of views of this. God, nature, law, rationality. Take your pick.
--
"God Hand is the ultimate expression of the joy of humanity, specifically the punching part of the joy of humanity."-Shigeru Miyamoto
"Abortions for all." [crowd boos] "Very well, no abortions for anyone." [crowd boos] "Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others." [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]
-- TheRock ~ Death By Misadventure, Not Suicide "Would've liked to see that." - Ayuyu on my boner
BoshStrikesBack posted... ...And hurting businesses is only wrong depending on your moral code. Goes both ways.
Shoplifting hurts business, and subsequently everybody who works for that business. Abortion potentially hurts nobody, assuming you have the procedure done before the brain is fully formed (before that point in time, the fetus cannot feel anything or perceive its environment).
they are the natural state of the world. naturally we can all do anything we want unless something else stops us from doing it. we choose to limit those rights by entering into a civilization, and what rights should be limited and in what way is the framework for every discussion we have on the matter.
I think I'm about done with this thread. There's no use trying to have a logical argument with people who believe it's acceptable to stomp on a sex's rights to make them feel better about laws they don't agree with.
BoshStrikesBack posted... I'll just say this: the problem with most advocates of prostitution is that they value equality simply for the sake of equality, with seemingly no boundaries. Do you really want to live in a country where our values permit of the exchange of bodies, degrading men and women alike into sex objects?
Considering this is what we call a loaded question, I'll say yes.
-- One Piece: Pirates with style! -= Metal Gear Solid: Tactical Espionage Action =-
they are the natural state of the world. naturally we can all do anything we want unless something else stops us from doing it. we choose to limit those rights by entering into a civilization, and what rights should be limited and in what way is the framework for every discussion we have on the matter.
The natural state of the world is for a collection of cells to eventually become a person. Abortion interrupts this process, thus taking away the (eventual) person's right.
Crono801 posted... OmarsComin posted... Where do rights come from?
they are the natural state of the world. naturally we can all do anything we want unless something else stops us from doing it. we choose to limit those rights by entering into a civilization, and what rights should be limited and in what way is the framework for every discussion we have on the matter.
The natural state of the world is for a collection of cells to eventually become a person. Abortion interrupts this process, thus taking away the (eventual) person's right.
The natural state of the world allows for parents to abandon or even outright kill their babies even after they are born. This is not uncommon among animals and was an accepted practice in many ancient societies.
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
Shoplifting hurts business, and subsequently everybody who works for that business. Abortion potentially hurts nobody, assuming you have the procedure done before the brain is fully formed (before that point in time, the fetus cannot feel anything or perceive its environment).
Again, it's a value judgment. You're trying to be a utilitarian while pretending that "maximizing pleasure" isn't a moral claim (and a specious one at that).
they are the natural state of the world. naturally we can all do anything we want unless something else stops us from doing it. we choose to limit those rights by entering into a civilization, and what rights should be limited and in what way is the framework for every discussion we have on the matter.
Exactly; rights are arbitrarily assigned out of a compact. This means, of course, that they can be changed at any time if the powers-that-be (which includes the masses) decide so.
Considering this is what we call a loaded question, I'll say yes.
Of course it's loaded. But if you agree with the premises- that prostitution is reprehensible- than the conclusion follows.
BoshStrikesBack posted... Shoplifting hurts business, and subsequently everybody who works for that business. Abortion potentially hurts nobody, assuming you have the procedure done before the brain is fully formed (before that point in time, the fetus cannot feel anything or perceive its environment).
Again, it's a value judgment. You're trying to be a utilitarian while pretending that "maximizing pleasure" isn't a moral claim (and a specious one at that).
The fact that you can sit there and try to tell me that shoplifting and abortion are similarly "wrong" only proves my point. We both accept shoplifting as wrong, but we can't agree about the acceptability of abortion.
Even if you want to claim that stealing is only subjectively wrong (afterall, "wrong" is a subjective term), I can't think of a single society where theft is legal and acceptable. It's by far the more accepted "hurtful" crime, because the damage done is quantifiable by a standard measure, and abortion isn't.
And even if they were equal in some ridiculous way, it would still be a red herring argument.
redrocket posted... The natural state of the world allows for parents to abandon or even outright kill their babies even after they are born. This is not uncommon among animals and was an accepted practice in many ancient societies.
The natural state of the world also allows for people to kill each other when they are angry at each other.
Crono801 posted... redrocket posted... The natural state of the world allows for parents to abandon or even outright kill their babies even after they are born. This is not uncommon among animals and was an accepted practice in many ancient societies.
The natural state of the world also allows for people to kill each other when they are angry at each other.
And look how divided the country gets every time there's a war.
Crono801 posted... redrocket posted... The natural state of the world allows for parents to abandon or even outright kill their babies even after they are born. This is not uncommon among animals and was an accepted practice in many ancient societies.
The natural state of the world also allows for people to kill each other when they are angry at each other.
Exactly.
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
The fact that you can sit there and try to tell me that shoplifting and abortion are similarly "wrong" only proves my point. We both accept shoplifting as wrong, but we can't agree about the acceptability of abortion.
Excuse me? I'm arguing that such things are only "wrong" subjectively, or based on an arbitrary value judgment. They're not wrong in themselves.
Even if you want to claim that stealing is only subjectively wrong (afterall, "wrong" is a subjective term), I can't think of a single society where theft is legal and acceptable. It's by far the more accepted "hurtful" crime, because the damage done is quantifiable by a standard measure, and abortion isn't.
Why does it matter what most societies do? How could that possibly be relevant to a moral discussion, given the kinds of seemingly-barbaric practices that have gone on for most of human history?
And this too is a value judgment: problems that are "quantifiable by a standard measure" are more worth reducing than "mere" moral problems. That doesn't have to be the case.
And even if they were equal in some ridiculous way, it would still be a red herring argument.
No argument here. I'm just making it clear that they're not as incomparable as you might think at first blush.