Comic Genesis Forums

Honor:

We can keep doing this, over and over and over again. My "beliefs" are not a threat to any women in general because I've never used them to hurt any women at all.

If other people share SOME of my "beliefs", and use those beliefs to hurt women, your argument is with them, not me. My beliefs are not wrong, my beliefs are not invalid, you just don't like them because some idiots (including other women) try to use them against women.

Your "facts" are currently being used to create a gender bias when it comes to reproductive issues and childrearing. A man can try to protect himself from becoming a father, but only a woman has true protection. A man can try protect his child from an unfit mother, but the bias looks to the woman the majority of the time to decide what's best for the child. A woman can refuse a pregnancy for any reason, yet a man cannot refuse it for any reason. This is not equality.

The compromise works regardless of the "beliefs" or "facts" in the matter. It creates equality between the genders in this issue. If technology gets to the point where a man can carry a fetus, he should be expected to do so. That is equality.

lesotheron wrote:We can keep doing this, over and over and over again.

So it would seem... But unless you "do it" with new information, you'll soon find yourself "doing it" alone. After this post, I'll probably address points I don't feel I've adequately (or exhaustively) addressed in previous posts, but I'm not going to play echo chamber with you any more.

I'm right, you're wrong, the data proves it, and that's really as far as I need to go with it. No, your saying "the data does not prove it!" won't work.

I've expressed the ideas I came to express, and I've got the data I was looking for. On a ratio of almost four to one, people agree that a male should have similar protections from unwanted pregnancy. Whether or not you accept it, that also underscores a broad understanding of the (legal, at least) "facts" of a fetus' status.

I'm done, and I'm marking it in the victory column... Society is maturing, reason is prevailing, and I'm gonna call that a win.

lesotheron wrote:My "beliefs" are not a threat to any women in general because I've never used them to hurt any women at all.

I'm sorry you're troubled by your lack of understanding of the way the law works.

Richard Gatling never killed anyone with a Gatling gun, and yet his invention is inherently dangerous. As far as I know, Henry Ford never ran anyone down in a model A, and Oppenheimer didn't press the "release" button the dropped the Fat Man into a Japanese city.

The idea that something is not dangerous because you, personally, wouldn't use it to hurt someone is ridiculous.

lesotheron wrote:My beliefs are not wrong, my beliefs are not invalid, you just don't like them because some idiots (including other women) try to use them against women.

Incorrect, Sir. Your beliefs are wrong, and thus invalid, because they fly in the face of established fact.

The fact that I dislike them, to the extent that I dislike them, is immaterial... The fact that I have good reason to dislike them is immaterial. They'd be just as wrong, even if I agreed with them whole-heartedly.

lesotheron wrote:Your "facts" are currently being used to create a gender bias when it comes to reproductive issues and childrearing.

Actually, if you'll struggle to remember, I'm the one who started a thread suggesting equal protection for the male... The (not "my") facts notwithstanding.

Just as your views are more useful for oppressing the female in this situation, they also are the views that must be used if the male is to be oppressed...

If the male is going to be forced to participate in a pregnancy he didn't want, we must subscribe to the false belief that the pregnancy (and thus the fetus) is somehow sacred because the woman wishes to keep it... Thus the male is automatically obligated. This is a dangerous double standard, both because it can be used to deprive the male of his rights, and because, with a little creative juggling, it can be used equally effectively to deprive the female of hers.

lesotheron wrote:The compromise works regardless of the "beliefs" or "facts" in the matter. It creates equality between the genders in this issue. If technology gets to the point where a man can carry a fetus, he should be expected to do so. That is equality.

And, if technology gets to the point where a cat can lay eggs, we won't have to keep those filthy chickens around.

Until such a time as the female can easily, cheaply, and harmlessly pass of the cells to a male carrier, the fiction that the fetus is anything more than a specific lump of cells with an interesting possible potential is only harmful to both sides...

Among other things, it serves to bolster the illusion that you have some kind of "right" to these cells because they carry some of your genetic material... Another dangerous misconception, the flaws in which I've defined several times already, and thus don't feel any need to repeat.

I will add another interesting facet to the legal ramifications of such a fallacy, though... If your position is correct, and the accident of genetic composition constitutes legal interest in the potential human, then the male should be able to force abortion, based on the idea that whether or not a being with his genetic code should be allowed to be born without his consent... If your position is correct, and the woman doesn't abort a child he doesn't want to exist, then she's "stolen" his genes to create a being he does not endorse.

And no. I don't want to argue it. It's legally sound. If the one legal condition prevails, then the other legal condition is inarguable, and the only remedy becomes a fallacious appeal to the magical specialness of the fetus.

And now we're getting somewhere.

As I've said, as long as both sides have "right of refusal" to the fetus, it doesn't matter if it's "life", a "being" or "property". Forcing a man to support a child is as wrong as forcing a woman to carry the child to term.

Once the technology arrives, if the woman no longer wants the fetus, she has the "right of refusal" to transfer it to the man, who can then carry it to term and raise it. The woman has given up her rights and responsibilities to the fetus and the resulting newborn, whether or not anyone considers the fetus to be a child.

If the man doesn't want the fetus, or the resulting child, he should have the "right of refusal" in the same way. He doesn't.

There is no issue with "theft" of the genetic material because each person has to take a chance whenever they have sex. Each person can remove their rights and responsibilities to the fetus, the newborn, the infant, the adolescent, the adult, equally.

Once again, we're fighting on the same side. We disagree about why we're fighting on the side that we're on, but that doesn't and shouldn't impede the fact that we're on the same side. Thus the futility of argument. Once I stated my beliefs on the matter, it stopped being a discussion of what should be done, and became an argument about whether or not I should believe what I do.

The fact that I share beliefs with the opposing side, just gives strength to the fact that "rational" people can see the flaws in the system, regardless of their beliefs.

We've been on the same side of those issues all along. Well... Most of them. Your current position on the DNA seems substantively different than before.

The disagreement has always been whether the lump of cells is a "person", and why that one issue is of central importance to the subject of reproductive rights in the first place.

Honor wrote:We've been on the same side of those issues all along. Well... Most of them. Your current position on the DNA seems substantively different than before.

The disagreement has always been whether the lump of cells is a "person", and why that one issue is of central importance to the subject of reproductive rights in the first place.

Actually, if you read back, I stated that even if you consider the fetus property, the man is 50% responsible for the creation of that property. He should have the "right of refusal" and the "right of burden" (once the technology arrives to allow it).

Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that once the technology arrives, women should be monitored throughout their pregnancies to make the experience as "authentic" as possible for the men who will eventually be able to carry their fetuses. Once you make a guy feel what pregnancy and childbirth are like, I'm sure they'll be less likely to forget the condoms next time. (of course, the much better solution is to make it as painless as possible for both parties)

And the disagreement wasn't about it being a "person". I agreed with you a long time ago that I don't consider a child to be a "person" before they have fully developed their "personhood". I stated that I believe that a fetus is a child. The law considers a child a "person" from birth, but that definition isn't accurate to either of us. My point was that you could even extend the arbitrary line of "person" from birth, back to conception and it still makes the compromise valid. Both sides still have "right of refusal" and if both refuse, abortion is the solution. If either one wants to keep the fetus, they'll be able to without infringing on the rights of the other party. Until the technology arrives, the woman gets the final say on her body (abortion), the man gets final say on his support. Both would still have "right of refusal".

After that, things just got muddier and more frustrating for the both of us. The issue got clouded and pretty much forgotten. Thus the inherent flaw of argument.

I'll say this, I'm glad that I have no interest in ruling the world. I don't think the fabric of reality could stay intact if we had to go "toe to toe". Although it would be a glorious battle.