tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post6272467588509033612..comments2024-03-25T17:38:55.490-07:00Comments on Dar Kush: Men shouldn't have opinions about women's issues?Steven Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-25993897587560651962022-07-07T22:43:02.329-07:002022-07-07T22:43:02.329-07:00Get More Info Dolabuy Bottega Veneta More Info c... Get More Info <a href="https://www.dolabuy.co/petit-c-157_158_363/louis-vuitton-replica-petit-sac-plat-monogram-vernis-leather-m90564-brown-p-2955.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>Dolabuy Bottega Veneta</strong></a> More Info <a href="https://www.dolabuy.co/waist-bag-c-157_158_371/cheap-louis-vuitton-bumbagbelt-bag-m51463-white-epi-leather-p-1019.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>cheap designer bags replica</strong></a> next <a href="https://www.dolabuy.co/since-c-157_158_314/louis-vuitton-m57273-since-1854-bordeaux-mm-neverfull-tote-p-2946.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>Ysl replica bags</strong></a>teytheighhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14189827775861710966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-27221648275617504212019-09-06T12:13:42.321-07:002019-09-06T12:13:42.321-07:00christian louboutin shoes
christian louboutin outl...<a href="http://www.louboutinshoes.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian louboutin shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.louboutin-outlet.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian louboutin outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.yeezy-shoes.org.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezy shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.michaelkors-outletfactory.us.org" rel="nofollow"><strong>michael kors factory outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.nikeairforce1.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>air force 1</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.vapormaxshoes.us" rel="nofollow"><strong>vapormax</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.golden-goose.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>golden goose</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.nikecortez.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>nike cortez</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.nike-hyperdunk.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>nike shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.jordansforcheap.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>100% real jordans for cheap</strong></a><br />yanmaneeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15229165146687805497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-69792595640696740742009-02-08T05:08:00.000-08:002009-02-08T05:08:00.000-08:00Josh: The concept of democracy is that the laws ar...Josh: The concept of democracy is that the laws are based upon the peoples will. When the those with a moral imperative tried do to ban alcohol back in the 1920's it didn't work because the majority of people didn't buy into it. Laws don't necessarily reflect morality. They do in a democracy tend to reflect what the majority believe is moral.<BR/>By the way if you carefully read my comments, I have never said that those who favor abortion as totally the decision of the pregnant woman are wrong or immoral. I have consistently said all positions on the subject have a degree of validity, so that includes the pro abortion position.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-6223080155422404522009-02-07T20:33:00.000-08:002009-02-07T20:33:00.000-08:00Vegetarians don't pass laws prohibiting you from e...Vegetarians don't pass laws prohibiting you from eating meat, Marty. <BR/><BR/>If you don't approve of abortions, don't have one. It's the telling people they can't have one that the debate centers around. <BR/><BR/>So, from the Catholic church's point of view, life begins at conception (fertilization, not even implantation) and anything that stops that is a sin, and should be prohibited. <BR/><BR/>That's fine. Religions can believe what they want, and tell followers to do so, or go to hell. It's when they stop outside of the religion, and make laws prohibiting nonbelievers from doing what they want where we've got problems.<BR/><BR/>If it were up to the Catholic Church, the majority vote would end up banning birth control, including condoms, wherever it could. <BR/><BR/>Are you arguing for morality by majority vote? Does something become wrong or right depending on how many people pass laws allowing or forbidding it?Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08441897278413737658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-35419888449833910482009-02-07T17:39:00.000-08:002009-02-07T17:39:00.000-08:00Steve Perry: My beliefs with respect to abortion h...Steve Perry: My beliefs with respect to abortion haveabsolutely nothing to do with my religious faith. I haven't been in a synagogue for at least twenty-five years unless I was attending a family event. You don't need to be religious to have a sense of right and wrong or have opinions on what actions are or are not ethical. By the way I know plenty of people who are vegetarians because their sense of right and wrong excludes killing animals for food. As far as sentience goes the counter argument to yours is simply that it is as true that carried to term the fertilized cell will turn into a sentient being as that the earth circles the sun, but cows, chickens and shrimp not only are not, but never will be sentient.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-74521658428207011982009-02-07T12:20:00.000-08:002009-02-07T12:20:00.000-08:00P.S. And if the consensus of opinion is that the w...P.S. And if the consensus of opinion is that the world is flat, it's still wrong, so argument from numbers doesn't work.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-40989159488747707992009-02-07T12:19:00.000-08:002009-02-07T12:19:00.000-08:00You didn't have to mention God, Marty -- that's wh...You didn't have to mention God, Marty -- that's where your argument comes from -- your religious faith. Because there is no scientific evidence that human life becomes sentient at conception, so you must have gotten it elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>And "reason" has a different meaning for those of us who use it and the Catholic church, because from their point of view, it's not reason but faith.<BR/><BR/>God said so. <BR/><BR/>If sentience is the cut-off for killing, of course. And if it isn't, then there goes T-bone steak, fried chicken, and shrimp.<BR/><BR/>You can believe what you want. But if you want to justify it to somebody who doesn't believe it, you need better tools than "because." And in the end, that's what faith is -- a belief that needs no proof.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-68604272332597219592009-02-07T11:23:00.000-08:002009-02-07T11:23:00.000-08:00Steve Perry: I still don't know where god comes in...Steve Perry: I still don't know where god comes into this discussion. I certainly have never mention him. Nor do I know where stem cell research,on which I have expressed no opinion, comes in. Now you make the argument that if one believes the fertilized egg should be protected, then one must go back in time and outlaw contraception. This is the catholic church's position and from their point of view perfectly reasonable. I can make the same argument as you do in the other direction. If a woman can abort an unborn child without a compelling reason, but just because she doesn't want a child then Susan Smith shouldn't be in jail for drowning her children, that she no longer wanted. Or suppose a woman on the delivery table suddenly decides that she doesn't want the child and tells the doctor to abort it. Is that okay. One has to set some point where the child's life is more important than the woman's comfort. All I have consistently said in this discussion is that individual's opinion about where to set the break point, and what would be a compelling reason for overriding that break point has a degree of validity and where that break point is set or what exceptions should be made in law should be a consensus of the opinion in our society.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-82555851423043812972009-02-06T18:42:00.000-08:002009-02-06T18:42:00.000-08:00Well, to keep the logic flowing here, protecting t...Well, to keep the logic flowing here, protecting that cell *might* result in a human being. It might also spontaneously abort a week later. Or miscarry a month later or three months later. <BR/><BR/>The fetus might develop anencephaly, or die in the womb, or cause pre-eclampsia in a perfectly healthy mother with no risk factors for it that kills her. <BR/><BR/>And since, if you carry the logic one step further, every human sperm and egg *might* become a human being, if they come together. Of course, of ten million sperm heading upriver, only one will make it if the conditions are right. But - which one? <BR/><BR/>Would you protect all sperm and eggs? Would male masturbation become a crime, ala Onan? If a woman ovulates and does not become pregnant and allows the egg to decay and flow away with her menses, should she be punished?<BR/><BR/>Yes, i agree, this sounds pretty silly. But it's only one tiny step back from that fertilization, isn't it? <BR/><BR/>Do two joined cells have the same rights as a newborn? As the mother? Because they *might* become human?<BR/> <BR/>It's a slippery slope. The day may be coming when sperm and eggs can not only be harvested and put together and then implanted in a woman's womb, but raised in a creche, in an artificial womb.<BR/><BR/>What happens then? <BR/><BR/>Which is the greater morality -- allowing embryonic stem cells that are left over from fertility clinics that are going to be discarded anyway to be used to maybe help create a cure for Parkinson's Disease? Or forbidding that practice based on religious morality?<BR/><BR/>These are all difficult questions, but I cannot believe that the answers should come from God. If God hadn't wanted man to use his brains, He wouldn't have given them to us, would he?Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-47309120255556351972009-02-06T15:09:00.000-08:002009-02-06T15:09:00.000-08:00Steve Perry: I'm not sure where god or Creationist...Steve Perry: I'm not sure where god or Creationist Science comes into discussion. But I think you have at lest found something we agree on. Teaching creationism as a science in school is a total abomination. Now as to logic. I don't have to believe or prove that the initial cell formed by the reproductive act is sentient in order to believe legal abortions should be limited. It merely needs my sense of ethics telling me that protecting that cell will result in a sentient human being at the end of the birth process. Again this no different than an environmentalist believing that we must protect the habitat a species lives in so that the species doesn't cease to exist.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-89976125292973094142009-02-06T10:43:00.000-08:002009-02-06T10:43:00.000-08:00Not to offer lessons in logic here, Marty, but you...Not to offer lessons in logic here, Marty, but you apparently could use them. You can hedge things, but there's nothing specious about presenting evidence.<BR/><BR/>The sun does not revolve around the Earth, not if ten billion people say it does and really believe it. <BR/><BR/>If you are going to offer that both sides of a debate are valid, then you need to present evidence. Burde of proof lies with the affirmative. What you've offered, essentially is that a lot of people believe abortion is murder. <BR/><BR/>Belief is not proof. Especially when that belief relies on faith in something that is ipso facto beyond the rules of evidence.<BR/><BR/>One can believe in a god or gods. One cannot prove they exist. That's what blind faith is, and it isn't amenable to reasonable discussion.<BR/><BR/>Creationist Science is an oxymoron.<BR/><BR/>When you can show me that the mating of a sperm and egg results in sentience, you'll have something.<BR/>Nobody has done so yet.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-19504419178355791342009-02-05T15:28:00.000-08:002009-02-05T15:28:00.000-08:00To Kai,You are pretty defensive about the question...To Kai,<BR/><BR/>You are pretty defensive about the question of men's rights being brought up at all. It was a valid argument when addressing the desire to grant special rights to women and exclude men simply because of the existing patriarchy and past oppression. Feminism is all about equality not reversing the scales, and as a woman I find your close mindedness distressing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-19143199712189808212009-02-05T15:02:00.000-08:002009-02-05T15:02:00.000-08:00Steve Perry: Your Galileo argument is completely s...Steve Perry: Your Galileo argument is completely specious with regard to my comment. Yes many statements one makes are either valid or not valid, but at least many have both a degree of validity and a degree of invalidity. For instance suppose I make a statement that a certain is day is cloudy. If there is a single cloud in the sky this statement is at least partially true, but the more clouds for longer time period, the more validity my statement has. So my statement merely said that those who would legalize abortions have some merit in their arguments and those who make them illegal have some merit to their arguments. Since this is a subjective decision it is more like my cloudy day example than your Galileo example and my statement is perfectly reasonable.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-31373097586781113862009-02-05T12:34:00.000-08:002009-02-05T12:34:00.000-08:00Good point, Nancy, about conscription.Sadly, the m...Good point, Nancy, about conscription.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, the men who have the most choice about wars are often not the ones directly fighting them.Lynn Gazis-Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775215056055972392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-37512234333721725302009-02-05T12:19:00.000-08:002009-02-05T12:19:00.000-08:00Marty --"Everybody has their own position on this ...Marty --<BR/><BR/>"Everybody has their own position on this subject and they are all to some degree valid."<BR/><BR/>Doesn't follow. A whole lot of people once believed the Earth was flat, that the sun circled it, and that disease was caused by flux in the aether. They were wrong. They enacted laws reflecting their ignorance.<BR/><BR/>Galileo had to recant perfectly valid science or be kicked out of a church that believed the Earth was the center of God's Universe.<BR/><BR/>"E pur si muove," he was alleged to have said. "And yet it moves."<BR/><BR/>All positions are not valid. We can disagree about which are which, but A is not non-A ...Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-90127912752492945972009-02-05T11:41:00.000-08:002009-02-05T11:41:00.000-08:00Nancy: I didn't say that women's motives in seekin...Nancy: I didn't say that women's motives in seeking an abortion aren't worthy of consideration. I said that it is reasonable to make laws limiting abortion if a majority of the society believes the enacted law to be justified. I clearly stated that where there is high physical risk to the mother I personally would advocate legal abortions. There are other motives for abortion that I would agree with. However, there are reasons that some people feel are valid for having an abortion that I don't agree with. Everybody has their own position on this subject and they are all to some degree valid. I just claim that my not being a woman doesn't disqualify from having a valid opinion on the subject.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-48003266625940405142009-02-05T10:37:00.000-08:002009-02-05T10:37:00.000-08:00Marty, you've mischaracterized my argument. It's n...Marty, you've mischaracterized my argument. It's not that anything people take serious risks to do is necessarily right, it's that anything people take serious risks to do is so important to them that their motives are worthy of serious consideration.<BR/><BR/>And in re your comparison to drunk driving, this especially applies to decisions people take when they aren't impaired.<BR/><BR/>Lynn, it's not just that sometimes men leave their families to defend them, often enough, men go to war because they're conscripted.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-15487456523673294612009-02-05T09:40:00.000-08:002009-02-05T09:40:00.000-08:00But it wasn't the woman's choice to raise those ch...<EM>But it wasn't the woman's choice to raise those children alone, it was the man's.</EM><BR/><BR/>Well, in the "left to go to war" cases, it wasn't always either one's choice. My grandfather left my grandmother to raise her children alone because his country got invaded in WWII; I think from his point of view he was more fighting to defend his family than leaving his family to fight.<BR/><BR/>Mileage may vary some here, depending on the family and the war.<BR/><BR/>(FWIW, in my own life I've only known of a few fathers bad enough that they were better off out of their children's lives. But there are of course some such cases.)Lynn Gazis-Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775215056055972392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-18392481098021618252009-02-05T09:23:00.000-08:002009-02-05T09:23:00.000-08:00For hundreds of years women have raised children a...For hundreds of years women have raised children alone--because the men left them. They left to go to war, to go to sea, to find a new trade route, to explore the world, or simply to get way. Women were left behind to raise the children, not knowing whether their husband would ever return, unable to remarry until there was proof of death. Sometimes the husband even came back from the war, from the sea, from the exploration. But it wasn't the woman's choice to raise those children alone, it was the man's.<BR/><BR/>Now women are choosing it. I just don't see the problem: the result is the same, children growing up without a father. As a woman I don't have a strong opinion about men growing up fatherless. My sons had an involved father even after our divorce, and they had other good male role models: coaches, daycare workers, my friends. Not father substitutes, of course, but father alternatives in case they didn't want to grow up to be just like their own dad.<BR/><BR/>When you imagine children bereft of the opportunity to learn from the compromises and negotiation necessary to a good romantic relationship, you are again assuming a good relationship. I didn't learn any of that. I learned about men hitting women, men verbally abusing women, men and women pursuing selfish pleasures instead of taking care of their children, men and women abandoning their children to the care of others. <BR/><BR/>From my perspective as a child of divorce and other bad relationships, I know my life was better when my mother didn't have a man in her life. She was less stressed, more involved with me, and a better homemaker and provider than when there was a man with our family. Our life was more stable, I attended school regularly, and we had less frequent problems with food and shelter when our family didn't include a man.<BR/><BR/>I'll freely grant that a good, healthy, intimate relationship between adults is the best possible basis for children. But the second best isn't necessarily a paired couple just because they're paired.Kai Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13319136737099550784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-16641206407643762762009-02-05T09:21:00.000-08:002009-02-05T09:21:00.000-08:00Lynn: Yes if you google this subject you will find...Lynn: Yes if you google this subject you will find that right to life groups are probably more vocal on this subject, just like many of the citations on other subjects represent aggressive use by liberal groups of some study they have found favorable to their cause. However, the Finish study does exist. It is also discussed on sites that are less biased than the one I sited The data sets CDC and Finish reflect different approaches to the question. While one can argue that the CDC study is more relevant because it reflects U.S. data, it suffers from the fact that it gathered by voluntary reporting, which in situations like this tend to be biased. I do not deny, that childbirth represents a health risk, I just take the position that a lot of things we do in life represent health risks and that the health risk to the mother of childbirth is less than the health risk to the unborn child of an abortion. It all comes down to the ethical value you place on preserving that life.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-44504255282000116622009-02-05T08:58:00.000-08:002009-02-05T08:58:00.000-08:00Kai,I don't think I am fantasizing about a father;...Kai,<BR/>I don't think I am fantasizing about a father; I have a great one. =) To me he was the finest man I've ever known. I've known lots of other people with similar relations to their fathers. I've also known people that couldn't stand their father-with good reason.<BR/><BR/>But the NYT article wasn't just about women with husbands or boyfriends that left them, it was also discussing women that made the choice to have children that would have no fathers at all. Their mothers wanted it that way. It is their life. I do not think they should be prevented from living it as they see fit. I do think though that they could be doing their children a disservice.<BR/><BR/>I would think it would be easier for the child (boy or girl) to grow up and learn about conflict resolution, compromise, give and take, and all the other myriad intricacies of interrelations that happen between men and women if they get to see that firsthand in their own home.<BR/><BR/>As someone said I could be assuming that a father as good as my own was available and that might not be the case, but the tone of the article was that available or not these women didn't want a father in their child's life because among other things that would mean giving up independence. I think the whole point of romantic life is that some independence is given up. So I don't really understand why anyone, male or female, would want to raise children without the opposite gender. Obviously this doesn't apply to abusive situations, gays/lesbians, widowers, etc.Shady_Gradyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00996625985002373392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-32645307219692999682009-02-05T07:45:00.000-08:002009-02-05T07:45:00.000-08:00" ... non-biological children ..."I like that one,..." ... non-biological children ..."<BR/><BR/>I like that one, Anon.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-87036925104881000682009-02-05T07:24:00.000-08:002009-02-05T07:24:00.000-08:00With respect to question four my opinion is that e...<EM>With respect to question four my opinion is that everybody, should have input on all three of the other questions.</EM><BR/><BR/>I agree, easily. There may be some aspects of the questions, though, where one person has more informed input than another.<BR/><BR/>On the sexuality and family structure questions, I can't find any quarrel with you. On the abortion/child birth question, I have a specific disagreement with you: I think that childbirth is significantly more physically risky than abortion, and you think the opposite. <BR/><BR/>My belief is based both on personal experience (two of my three sisters had life threatening pregnancies, in both cases their first, and other relatives also had hazardous pregnancies) and the fact that, like Kai, I'm in the position where the studies I've seen appeared to indicate greater risks from childbirth than from abortion. I think your Google results may be skewed by pro-life sites doing a better job of advertising the set of data supporting their claims, without that data set actually being larger. If you can get similar results, not from Google but from Medline, or from some group like the CDC instead of one with a pro-life axe to grind, I may reconsider my assessment of the relative risks. It's not like I jump for joy at the thought of more abortions. I just really do see pregnancy and childbirth as events that involve significant health risks (and also, of course, if you can manage to want the child, significant joy).Lynn Gazis-Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775215056055972392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-35393817583544821162009-02-05T06:55:00.000-08:002009-02-05T06:55:00.000-08:00Marty S.: Got any unbiased sources? I'll take the...Marty S.: Got any unbiased sources? I'll take the CDC and WHO over some organization calling themselves "for life" any time. <BR/>Oh, hey, that's a small study done in Finland. My numbers are for the US. <BR/><BR/>Shady Grady and others: When you fantasize about a father, you're likely making up a good one. They're not all good: men are only human, just like women. Try fantasizing about a father who beat you, or one whose every word toward you was humiliating and demeaning. Or one who simply didn't care: sure they were in the home, but they never asked about your day, encouraged you in your pursuits and dreams, or taught you disciplined behavior. (And you could have had a mother like that, too; it's not just men who are sometimes lousy parents.) I definitely think having no father at all is better than one whose every act and word tells you that you don't matter to him. <BR/><BR/>My husband grew up in a happy family; he has a very difficult time even understanding intellectually some of the things that happened to me when I was growing up. His parents were loving, involved people who made genuine efforts to teach him how to find a good life to live; mine didn't even manage to feed me, house me, or get me to school on a regular basis. Assuming that the missing parent you imagine would be one of the good ones, while an appealing thought, is hardly likely to match reality.Kai Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13319136737099550784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-73594520810608582012009-02-05T05:16:00.000-08:002009-02-05T05:16:00.000-08:00Kai: Before I made my statement I googled abortion...Kai: Before I made my statement I googled abortion death rate and the preponderance of articles I found suggested higher date rates associated with abortion. Here is one of them.<BR/><BR/>http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/290/26/<BR/><BR/>You say the WHO study found the death rate from pregnancy to be 1 in 9000. That agrees with the 1 in 5000 to 1 in 10000 range that I found.<BR/><BR/>Nancy: You say that many women risk their life to have an abortion, so they must have a good reason that I don't understand because I'm not a woman. By that logic since many drinkers risk their life by driving under the influence and I don't drink I have no right to believe that laws against drinking and driving are justified. Most people who do something have a justification in their own mind why it is correct. The thief whose only source of income is his thievery, may feel justified. After all the person he steals from is better off and can afford the loss. I can understand the thief's rationalization, that doesn't mean I have to approve of his actions or that a law against stealing is justified.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.com