Do you believe men and women should have exactly the same rights under the law or should there be some specific differences?

TheMythof_Feminism · 2018-08-06T00:00:40+00:00

If yes to the first part, please explain. If you agree with the second part, please explain. EDIT : My position is that the law should adjust to fit the...

[–]iainmf 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]cld8 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cld8 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]cld8 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoubleDonged 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well that's wrong on several levels, and completely inconsistent with your stance of "equality under the law".

I'll limit it to two things; An embryo is both human and alive, and correspondingly has 50% of its tissue due to the man, which should provide him with 50% of the rights to claim that embryo. You didn't say this, you are talking about women having absolute power to kill an embryo.

I thought you said "All people should be equal under the law"? you are demonstrably arguing that women should have more rights , and rights over men even..... how do you square this in your mind?

No, you are misreading. I'm saying that both men and women should have the same rights over their bodies. Do you not agree with that?

The rights to bodily integrity and self-determination are human rights that apply to both genders.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earth 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No, you are misreading.

No , I'm not.

Then you are willfully misinterpreting it.

I'm saying that both men and women should have the same rights over their bodies.

The question is, "should men and women have exactly the same rights under the law?", apparently you don't seem to think so. That's fine, but you were sneaky about it.

I do think so, and I'm not sneaky about it. You are misinterpreting me, or trying to twist my words to make your twisted point.

The rights to bodily integrity and self-determination are human rights that apply to both genders.

An embryo is not part of your body, or a woman's body whatever. It is another human life entirely. That's not my opinion, that is hard fact.

This does not change anything. Whether it is a man or a woman being pregnant, they have the same rights to bodily integrity and self-determination.

You may be against abortion, but arguing that from an equal rights point of view is disingenuous.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Then you are willfully misinterpreting it.

No, I'm not. Your argument is inconsistent.

You are misinterpreting me, or trying to twist my words to make your twisted point.

Ok. Show me where I allegedly misrepresented anything you've said. By the way, this is exactly why I always quote exactly what I am responding to.

Because I know that there are people like you that want to either take me out of context, or pretend like I did that to them. But sure, go ahead. Show me.

This does not change anything.Whether it is a man or a woman being pregnant, they have the same rights to bodily integrity and self-determination.

The body being killed is not that of the woman, it is that of the embryo. You are again being sneaky and trying to pretend that's not what this is about.

You may be against abortion, but arguing that from an equal rights point of view is disingenuous.

Absolutely I am against abortion 100%. Anyone that is rational must be against abortion on several levels, but that's not my point.

The point is that the embryo is not the woman's body, nor is it even created by the woman, it is an entirely new life which is 50% the man's and 50% the woman's, therefore, each one should correspondingly have an equal claim to the embryo.

However, you have argued that men should not have rights. That women should have absolute power in this regard and I want to know how this squares with your "I want equality under the law" argument.

[–]a-man-from-earth 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Your argument is inconsistent.

It is not. I keep repeating myself, and saying that the person who is pregnant (just like any person) should have the right to bodily integrity and self-determination, regardless of gender. As I mentioned before:

When medical science gets to the point where it's possible to implant a uterus in a man, and he could get pregnant, should he not have the right to abort?

Which exactly addressed your original question about equal rights under the law for men and women.

This does not change anything.Whether it is a man or a woman being pregnant, they have the same rights to bodily integrity and self-determination.

The body being killed is not that of the woman, it is that of the embryo. You are again being sneaky and trying to pretend that's not what this is about.

I am not being sneaky, I am being consistent. The same principles of bodily integrity and self-determination apply, whether the person is a man or a woman. Once men can get pregnant, they should have the same right to abort as women.

Now if you want to talk about the rights of the embryo, that is a different matter. But again, the principle of equal rights should apply, regardless of the gender of the embryo, or the gender of the parent.

Anyone that is rational must be against abortion on several levels,

You would have to prove that first, and I do not think you can make that case.

but that's not my point.

Yet somehow you try to make this discussion about equal rights, about abortion. As follows:

The point is that the embryo is not the woman's body, nor is it even created by the woman, it is an entirely new life which is 50% the man's and 50% the woman's, therefore, each one should correspondingly have an equal claim to the embryo.

Leaving aside the details of your assertions here, and for the sake of argument supposing that you're right, if the man and the woman contribute in equal amounts to the creation of the embryo, then I grant they should have equal claim to the embryo. In case she wants to surrender her parental rights, he should have the right to receive the embryo and take care of it himself, and vice versa.

However, you have argued that men should not have rights.

That is exactly the opposite of what I have been arguing:

All people should be equal under the law. I don't see how you could defend differential treatment based on gender.

All people have the right to remove something growing in their body.

When medical science gets to the point where it's possible to implant a uterus in a man, and he could get pregnant, should he not have the right to abort?

I'm saying that both men and women should have the same rights over their bodies.

The rights to bodily integrity and self-determination are human rights that apply to both genders.

Whether it is a man or a woman being pregnant, they have the same rights to bodily integrity and self-determination.

There is no rational way that you can claim that I argue "that men should not have rights." That is a clear misrepresentation. I consistently argue for equal rights.

If you once more claim I do not argue for equal rights, then that constitutes an admission that you are misrepresenting what I say and that you do not argue in good faith.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You absolutely refuse to address my argument, continually pretending like you don't understand.

I'm not surprised, acknowledging my point would completely refute your argument.

if you want to talk about the rights of the embryo, that is a different matter

It's exactly the same matter but you are continually pretending it isn't. I know why that is though, because you would be forced to recognize your position is inconsistent.

There is no rational way that you can claim that I argue "that men should not have rights."

That is correct.

But not for any failing on my part, but because you are continually trying to be sneaky and refuse to even acknowledge the point of contention.

that constitutes an admission that you are misrepresenting what I say and that you do not argue in good faith.

You are arguing in very bad faith, for you to say the above quoted is rich.....

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QSHV 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Free_kittens2468 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cld8 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cld8 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cld8 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

Can you provide an example of one?

Sure that's easy.

Abortion. I am 100% against abortion, but if it is going to be done, men should have rights to the embryo, they should have a claim. Most pro-abortion people, and even pro-"equality under the law" people disagree with this. They believe men should have no rights and women should have absolute power.

I agree that we CANNOT have equality under the law on subjects like this because the situation is different for each person. However, I believe men should have Some rights when it comes to the embryo that is 50% genetically theirs... not the exact same rights as a woman, but some rights nonetheless.

To put it in practical terms; A man should be able to walk away from a pregnancy that he does not want but should not have the right to force the woman to have an abortion...... that kind of thing.

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

For women, that takes the form of abortion; for men, it takes the forms of vasectomies and legal paternal surrender.

Yeah I understand the legal paternal surrender, but the vasectomy thing seems a tad unrelated.

The reason I’m against the notion of allowing men to force women to abort or carry the fetus against their will, is because it violates the woman’s right to control over their body

That's nonsensical given that the human life killed is not the woman's, but rather the embryo's... however, I understand that some people have no issue with that, fair enough at least you are being up front about it.

Anyway, point is, though it takes different forms, the rights being preserved are essentially the same.

No sir.

"Different forms" / different rights = not the same.

However, I will give you credit as you are the only person thus far that openly stated their position without obfuscation. My compliments and respects.

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

How does breastfeeding increase exposure to smog and sunlight beyond other activities that involve taking a baby out of their carrier?

I said breastfeeding in the open . Do not misrepresent my argument.

Anyway, what do you mean "how"? it's not my opinion to say newborns are highly vulnerable to smog and sunlight. Breastfeeding takes time, and to keep a newborn exposed to these things is beyond irresponsible.

For ex:

" 0-6 months: Infants under 6 months of age should be kept out of the sun. Their skin is too sensitive for sunscreen. An infant's skin possesses little melanin, the pigment that gives color to skin, hair and eyes and provides some sun protection. Therefore, babies are especially susceptible to the sun's damaging effects. "

SkinCancer.org

This should really go without saying.... I don't even have children and even I know this.

[–]tehjdot 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are taking the morally correct view (in my opinion) that a fetus is a person.

I don't remember using the nomenclature "fetus" nor "person". The terms I always use, because they're the correct terms are;

"An embryo is both 'human' and 'alive'"

Not your flimsy strawman argument nonsense.

you are asserting that no one has the right to kill the fetus.

Embryo, but yes, correct. Killing another human for nothing more than convenience is unjustifiable.

What you fail to see however is that no human has the right to another persons body.

Excpet that the embryo didn't magically appear out of nowhere. The woman willingly chose to create it by engaging in unprotected sex during her fertile days. This makes her killing of this human being much more egregious.

You appear to be completely wrong and have a poor understanding of the subject matter.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mythandros 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You were asking if men and women should be treated differently under the law, and you've been arguing at length that they should be treated differently under the law.

That's correct.

That has zero relation to your strawman argument.

So the question is, how differently?

To be decided on a case-by-case basis. I understand that I am a minority in this subreddit when it comes to jurisprudence, but regardless of your beliefs, everyone must necessarily agree that each case must be measured based on the context provided.

That's not an opinion, that is how jurisprudence works.

women already have several defenses for murder that men don't have

That's a nice red herring.

You don't seem to be able to understand what is being said ..... jurisprudence is not meant to be "equal" it is meant to be fair and even handed. These are not the same thing.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]RobertCatherine1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

You can write a putatively gender neutral law in a way in which people are treated fairly and equally, or you can write a putatively gender neutral law in a way which creates or enables gender inequality.

A law like the second case is undesirable, of course, but I'm doubtful that replacing it with an explicitly biased law would be a better solution than replacing it with a law like the first case.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]RobertCatherine1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I would never advocate , nor support "gender neutral" anything.

Huh... What sort of explicit gender bias do you advocate for the laws regarding, say, buglary? Or tax evasion? Or drunk driving?

The sexes are not equal. Jurisprudence is (supposed to be) fair and even handed. It is not supposed to be "equal".

And writing laws that fit the first case can be tricky in areas of law that are directly impacted by biological differences, but for a lot of areas of law it would be unnecessary, and somewhat bizarre, to treat men and women differently.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]RobertCatherine1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Drivel.

You do this sort of thing a lot when people gamely point out you've said something stupid. If you just acknowledge you've said something stupid, we can move on, but you do this instead so ypur stupidity persists in the discusdion.

Differences exist between men and women. The law must observe these distinctions.

And how do you propose "the law must observe these distinctions" in the cases of burglary, tax evasion, and drunk driving?

Again, the classic example is abortion. It is impossible to have the law reflect "equality" in it.

"No one should be forced to use their body to support an unwanted child and we should respect that every person has the right to choose to be, or not to be, a parent." is the formulation of gender equal reproductive rights I've seen floated around here a few times.

"Being forced to use your body to support an unwanted child" would encompass both having the value of your physical/mental labor taken from you and the biological gestation of a fetus.

You can pretend that this isn't what I'm talking about, I don't mind.

If that's what you want to talk about, perhaps state things to specify that's what you want to talk about. Otherwise you sound like you're saying stupid shit.

But it's better than a lazy one-size fits all borderline communist idea that everyone is just the same. That is patently false.

Lazy gender neutral laws that produce a biased effect and lazy gender biased laws that produce a fair effect are both worse than a well-written gender neutral law that produces a fair effect.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You do this sort of thing a lot when people gamely point out you've said something stupid.

Given that I don't say anything "stupid", I can only conclude that you are projecting and insecure.

And how do you propose "the law must observe these distinctions" in the cases of burglary, tax evasion, and drunk driving?

Do I really have to explain the obvious? it should go without saying that in, for example, cases like tax evasion, there is no distinction between men and women, to even bring it up is pure unadulterated idiocy.

No one should be forced to use their body to support an unwanted child a

Whoever said that is a moron. A woman's inconvenience does not outweigh a human life.

would encompass both having the value of your physical/mental labor taken from you and the biological gestation of a fetus.

Yeah no.

The embryo is 50% the man's, by definition. Yet he has no rights. I don't necessarily disagree that the woman should have an advantage here, but the law cannot be "equal" in this regard. Obviously.

Lazy gender neutral laws

Again, drivel.

Jurisprudence does not function the way you suggest, and if it did, it would be malfunctioning. The law distinguishes between different things, it's called context.

[+]RobertCatherine1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Do I really have to explain the obvious? it should go without saying that in, for example, cases like tax evasion, there is no distinction between men and women, to even bring it up is pure unadulterated idiocy.

Sooo... Your previous assertion that you'd never support gender neutral anything was you saying something stupid. "Pure unadulterated idiocy", even. Glad we've worked that out.

Whoever said that is a moron. A woman's inconvenience does not outweigh a human life.

It's not being weighed against "human life" (in a significant/meaningful sense. Yes, seen where you present some cheesmo definitions of "human" and "alive" and then pretend that's equivalent to a human person's life.) and it's slightly more than "inconvenience". Just as having a quarter or more of your working life taken from you for child support for 18+ years is more than just inconvenient.

The embryo is 50% the man's, by definition. Yet he has no rights.

That's because the woman's body is 0% the man's, so he has no right to force her to use her body to support an unwanted child.

Similarly, the man's body is 0% the woman's, so she has no right to force him to use his body to support an unwanted child.

I don't necessarily disagree that the woman should have an advantage here, but the law cannot be "equal" in this regard. Obviously.

The inequality is biological, not legal, so the law certainly can be equal. But there are many ways you can formulate putatively gender equal/neutral laws, which will interact with the biological inequality in different ways.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

our previous assertion that you'd never support gender neutral

O_o

I have a nephew, he is 10 years old, he would have understood a very long time ago and yet you are still unable to understand. I am a bit shocked.

There is no such thing as "gender neutral". Distinctions are made where necessary , otherwise it is irrelevant. That's how determinations occur. It's called CONTEXT. In how many ways must this be explained ?

It's not being weighed against "human life"

Actually it is, and that's not my opinion.

I have an extremely high level of patience but you have demonstrated a shockingly poor understanding of very simple concepts. I have no interest in wasting time trying to explain embrylogy to you, little one.

That's because the woman's body is 0% the man's

That's cute.

We're not talking about the woman, we're talking about the embryo. Pay attention.

The inequality is biological

What's your point?

not legal

My patience is at an end. You are a very special person.

By definition, the law is NOT equal regardless of your nonsensical categorization failure.

I know what is going on though, I don't think you are simple minded, I think you are what is known as "ideologically possessed". You show all the symptoms of it, gg.

Comments