sapphire wrote:Yes, there was an analogy. There was an evaluation of the differences and similarities of two hypothetical situations. Analogy. And it remains unapt for the reasons you did not address, here I restate: It compares the born to the unborn, and the bearer cannot provide legal dissaproval. If that's not enough, include also that your second situation involved repeat action.
This is where the pro-choice stance leads us. "A human fetus is completely different from another living thing, so, you can't make any comparisons whatsoever." This still does not alter the fact that we treat puppies better than the unborn under the law. One has to dehumanize the unborn to claim that no comparison can be made.
And here, finally, we get to the core of the debate. Living thing. When does life begin?
Rather than continue this debate to its inevitabel stalemate of "I can't convince you, you can't convince me," I propose we declare truce now.
sapphire wrote:Am I supposed to defend this position? It's a sideways argument. It bears revelance to the abortion debate only in perspective of the man's right to choose in abortion. I explain below. But don't force me to defend any legal oddities you find in order to hold my position.
Not at all. What I was illustrating was just how far the law has come. It is now defending women's rights to the utter detriment of men's. This is where the pro-choice stance has led us.
That which is misapplied is not proven wrong.
Yeah, that's all I have to say.
sapphire wrote:Extremist much? Your position boils down to 'since women have babies, they shouldn't have equal pay or jobs.' The utter ridiculousness of this is such that I don't disgrace you by pretending you meant to say that.
That is exactly what I am saying, believe it or not. There is always the chance that women in the work force will become pregnant, and thus require special treatment that costs the employer money while the productivity of the employee goes down. It's not politically correct to say this, but it is none the less true. Women don't get the same raises men get, nor the same promotions men get because of the child-bearing capability of women.
Except that the law requires that employers pay them equally on paper, even though the cost to the employer is higher.
Take the medical leave act. Sure, it applies equally to both men and women, but who is the one more likely to take it?
Even assuming what you have put forth, it is still
making blanket statements about every woman. Should this apply only to fertile women? What if women take a vow of celibacy? Or adopt?
And then, even again
, the ramifications don't seem to be thought out. Consider when, six years ago, someone suggested a tax on men to justify our dispraportionate numbers in prison and crime. What justification do you have for inequal gender law which does not also support this? Or do you support this?
sapphire wrote:In regards to the equality of the law, please consider the actual difference between the workplace and reproductive law. In reproductive law, the differences between men and women are demonstratable. If you can demonstrate in a court of law a woman is incapable of doing a job, you have a case. Otherwise, your claim is a blanket black-and-white demand, which reflects little to nothing of the nuanced, case-by-case state of the world and how it is handled by American law.
Except that standards for firefighters were lowered *specifically* to insure that more women could pass the test, despite the fact that it meant that women would be filling roles which they may be incapable of fulfilling, such as handling a firehose, full blast, all in the name of equal opportunity. I'll need to find the reference to back that up, which I don't have at present.
That reference would help.
Besides which, I am the one calling for case-by-case basis. I can see how, in your advocation of an all-or-nothing law, if women haven't proven themselves adept firefighters they shouldn't be guaranteed equal jobs in, say, banking, or healthcare administration, or any form of mangement.
sapphire wrote:Again, please re-read my post. I suggested celibacy (here bolded). But celibacy is a perfect-world solution. It is the best option, and I don't deny that. But its also as impractical as assuming the best of government and social programs, and I hope you realize that. Man is fallen. Either admit that humans as fallible, sexual things, or continue to forward programs and idealogies grounded more in hope than in reality.
You suggest celibacy, then pass it off as impractical.
Man is fallen. We have a commandment that says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" and yet he commits murder anyway. It's going to happen. This commandment is grounded more in hope than in reality. Maybe we should make a list of people who are better off dead, such as the terminally ill, the mentally incompetant, and let those who we know are predisposed to murder to kill them. A nice practical solution, don't you think?
In the first part, it seems I have not made my point clearly. I defended contraceptives inequally to abstinence because I believe them equal but am debating someone who does not (granted, this is an assumption, and, if inaccurate, I apologize).
In regards to your assertion that if there are more practical solutions to celibacy, your all-or-nothing instinct kicks in and, well, we might as well do it for murder too.
But don't we already? Aren't there already a dozen, a hundred different things which exist, whose primary justification is an outlet for these same base urges? Hunting, paintball, both footballs, most sports, most video games, and if you spend enough money there's a room in China where you can go and destroy a bunch of furniture, all as an 'outlet.'
Besides which, the sexual instincts simply cannot be compared to the aggression instincts and found equal. They aren't even in the same ballpark.
To be simple: Sex is a hunger. It can be ignored, but only released by in a single way. It can be whetted, and it can be tempted. It will rise. It will fall. It is also unique to every human. A quick glance 'round the internet proves that everyone's individual taste is widely varied and seemingly never the same twice. It is not an emotion.
Aggression is an emotion. It cannot be ignored because it is, by definition, paying attention to something that is aggravating. A form of attention. The aggravating object can be ingored, however. It can be released in any number of above ways. It can not be whetted; killers who do so out of rage rarely feel 'finished,' as it were. Justified, yes, but not 'satisfied.' Rage, like love or sorrow, is universal, and (though reactions are different, mostly defined by other factors), not unique to every human. It is not a hunger.
I think that's it.
I would have hoped to say something meaninful, or possible inciteful. But, alas.
How goes the world today? From right to left or left to right? Perhaps it runs round mad reels, turning in on itself only at long last to blow away with the leaves and gutter-trash.
How goes the world today? Top to Bottom or Bottom to Top? Perhaps it will rise high enough so that it may see the back of its own head, in a maddening tunnel of infinity.
How goes the world today? Clockwise or Counter? Perhaps it will spin itself mad, curling a spring-from into endlessness.
Or maybe, today, it will just stop.