Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Entitlement To Birth Control?

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 1:22:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Entitlement To Birth Control

The Fool: Feminists generally argue that women are entitled for birth control and this debate has especially become popular from a fairly recent incident where the courts agreed that corporations, such as "hobby lobby" do not have to cover birth control as part of their insurance policy..

And of course feminist went berserk.

I am continuing this argument from a previous thread where I believe the focus of the discussion has gotten lost, and I would like to keep the focus as clear as possible.

The first thing I would like to make clear is the difference in agenda between me and Jimmy.

Jimmy's is what MRA's call a Trad/Con (Traditionalist/Conservative) which is similar to "Hobby lobby" who argued that since contraception was against their religious views they should not have to supply it.

I am arguing from a strictly gender rights agenda, and from what I believe to be unfair discrimination by gender, although I do agree with the logic behind Jimmy's argument does hold.

Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

Entitlement is to be distinguished from privilege. Entitlement is something we are "necessarily" have, and so it must be taken away for it to be denied as opposed to a privilege which can be granted or given to you. The subtleties in rhetoric are everything, because feminists will frame the language in a way which presumes that women are being victimized in some sense, and denied something that they already have or is owed to them, as opposed to being granted or not granted something.

Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:

P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.

P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

P3. Males are not entitled to have sex with female nor are females entitled to have sex with males.

P4. Therefore females are not entitled to birth control.

The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!

I mean, women are not these impulsive savage wolves who can't control their sexual desire, right? And so perhaps there should be absolutely no responsibility, or precautions taken by the rest of society, to help prevent them getting pregnant, in the case that they should choose to have sex. Right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The difference between "it would be nicer and/or helpful if society does this", and "society owes me this! You bastards!"

Big difference! For some consider the former claim as blaming the victim.

Against The Ideologist

The difference between "thank you!" and "Fvck you!"
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 2:58:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 1:22:17 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Entitlement To Birth Control

The Fool: Feminists generally argue that women are entitled for birth control and this debate has especially become popular from a fairly recent incident where the courts agreed that corporations, such as "hobby lobby" do not have to cover birth control as part of their insurance policy..

And of course feminist went berserk.

I am continuing this argument from a previous thread where I believe the focus of the discussion has gotten lost, and I would like to keep the focus as clear as possible.

The first thing I would like to make clear is the difference in agenda between me and Jimmy.

Jimmy's is what MRA's call a Trad/Con (Traditionalist/Conservative) which is similar to "Hobby lobby" who argued that since contraception was against their religious views they should not have to supply it.

I am arguing from a strictly gender rights agenda, and from what I believe to be unfair discrimination by gender, although I do agree with the logic behind Jimmy's argument does hold.

Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

Entitlement is to be distinguished from privilege. Entitlement is something we are "necessarily" have, and so it must be taken away for it to be denied as opposed to a privilege which can be granted or given to you. The subtleties in rhetoric are everything, because feminists will frame the language in a way which presumes that women are being victimized in some sense, and denied something that they already have or is owed to them, as opposed to being granted or not granted something.


Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:

P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.

P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

P3. Males are not entitled to have sex with female nor are females entitled to have sex with males.

P4. Therefore females are not entitled to birth control.


The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!

I mean, women are not these impulsive savage wolves who can't control their sexual desire, right? And so perhaps there should be absolutely no responsibility, or precautions taken by the rest of society, to help prevent them getting pregnant, in the case that they should choose to have sex. Right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The difference between "it would be nicer and/or helpful if society does this", and "society owes me this! You bastards!"

Big difference! For some consider the former claim as blaming the victim.

Against The Ideologist

The difference between "thank you!" and "Fvck you!"



Okay, so from what I am understanding as the way you are framing your position is that 19 year old female whom walks into a clinic (variety of choice), they have no specific claim to birth control, even though we agree that there is a benefit in providing it.

In light of this, my clarification with HL, and the opinions I made previous were all related to an understanding of an employer/employee benefit, or some exchange of services. This would make the person very much entitled to (in this instance) birth control, as it was a legal requirement, and a benefit of employ.

Personal note: HL got my grape due to the cost. If they don't want to provide XYZ on religions grounds, great. Broker a price with the insurance Co, give that money directly to the employee, and tell the employee a seperate plan is available. Instead, they are trying to take a bizarre moral high ground about being forced to supply something they are not actually supplying. Were one to be generous in the definition of 'supply', its still a stretch, as the employee would still be 2 steps removed from HL on the matter. HL states they don't want to provide means of access, and yet, currency is a means of access. It just all seems... well, needlessly complicated when there are easier avenues of complying with the law and keeping their morals intact.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 3:10:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
FaustianJustice: Okay, so from what I am understanding as the way you are framing your position is that 19 year old female whom walks into a clinic (variety of choice), they have no specific claim to birth control, even though we agree that there is a benefit in providing it.

The Fool: There is no possible way you could of got this understanding from what I've written. Did you even read past the first paragraph, because I'm not arguing about Hobby lobby, but whether or not birth control for female only is a privilege as opposed to an entitlement as a society in general, when men do not have that opportunity.

I went through defining the difference between being privilege and Entitlement as well. It's not hard to confuse my argument because the premises are laid out in the open. So either you deny a premise, or you deny that even if the premises are true, that the conclusion Is not true.

So there's no excuses.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 3:38:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 3:10:11 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
FaustianJustice: Okay, so from what I am understanding as the way you are framing your position is that 19 year old female whom walks into a clinic (variety of choice), they have no specific claim to birth control, even though we agree that there is a benefit in providing it.

The Fool: There is no possible way you could of got this understanding from what I've written. Did you even read past the first paragraph, because I'm not arguing about Hobby lobby, but whether or not birth control for female only is a privilege as opposed to an entitlement as a society in general, when men do not have that opportunity.

I'm not arguing anything about HL either. Hence the 'personal note' at the end. I appreciate they are not germane to the point, but had an opinion on the matter, possibly even a solution to their moral dilemma.


I went through defining the difference between being privilege and Entitlement as well. It's not hard to confuse my argument because the premises are laid out in the open. So either you deny a premise, or you deny that even if the premises are true, that the conclusion Is not true.

As well, but not very well, which is why I am trying to remove the word 'entitlement' from the premise to see if what I think you are saying and what you are saying is the same thing. MW's defition 2 of entitlement states " a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract ". This however doesn't seem congruent to another definition which is essentially confusing given privilege with a legal claim to.

You are completely correct, rhetoric and semantics can twist a lot, so, it seems reasonable to try and frame and verify what I think you are saying before rendering an opinion on it, yes?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 3:46:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Entitlement to Birth Control?

FaustianJustice: Okay, so from what I am understanding as the way you are framing your position is that 19 year old female whom walks into a clinic (variety of choice), they have no specific claim to birth control, even though we agree that there is a benefit in providing it.

The Fool: Either way this is non sequitur argument, as there would be a more of benefit in providing free housing, and education for homeless people, because they exist in our country, rather than not. But it would be something which we are granting them, out of the goodness of our hearts, as we perhaps should. But they are not entitled in the sense that they should feel scornful against those who it didn't, for those that do. Such an argument can be extended indefinitely, to every problem on the earth. Such an argument can be extended indefinitely problems around the world.. And these are much more important needs then 19-year-old needs of birth control when she can buy a box of condoms.

FaustianJustice: In light of this, my clarification with HL, and the opinions I made previous were all related to an understanding of an employer/employee benefit, or some exchange of services.

The Fool: I don't know about your opinions previously. I'm just making the argument now for the first time.

FaustianJustice: This would make the person very much entitled to (in this instance) birth control, as it was a legal requirement, and a benefit of employ.

The Fool: And this of course would not extend to women is a gender, but rather as individuals, on a particular insurance plan. Therefore besides the point.

FaustianJustice: Personal note: HL got my grape due to the cost. If they don't want to provide XYZ on religions grounds, great. Broker a price with the insurance Co, give that money directly to the employee, and tell the employee a seperate plan is available. Instead, they are trying to take a bizarre moral high ground about being forced to supply something they are not actually supplying.

The Fool: As I recall it they actually have access to certain kinds of birth control, it's in fact only an exclusive set that they don't want to pay for. So it's not about having their birth-control paid for but having a full range of options.

FaustianJustice: Were one to be generous in the definition of 'supply', its still a stretch, as the employee would still be 2 steps removed from HL on the matter. HL states they don't want to provide means of access, and yet, currency is a means of access. It just all seems... well, needlessly complicated when there are easier avenues of complying with the law and keeping their morals intact.

The Fool: No kidding, the company is obviously capitalizing on a legal loophole to save money, where they can get away with it. And so perhaps there being Dikheads, because of that. But it is not as feminists are selling it, evil white men who are, and denying women of the right to birth control. It simply just greedy corporations, saving money where they can. But this is beside the point.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 4:14:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Peachy. That being the case, I have inserted a few points below that might complicate the issue, or possible bring further points of discussion.


I am arguing from a strictly gender rights agenda, and from what I believe to be unfair discrimination by gender.

So, this would mean men should have equal entitlement to birth control for themselves, that being chemical sterilization, or vasectomies. I am not terribly sure our options are as plentiful as the opposite gender, which might be why such a percieved entitlement gains traction amongst women.

Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

I don't think they want it, though, given what is avaialable. A case for equality can't be made if men don't have skin in the game, per say.


Entitlement is to be distinguished from privilege. Entitlement is something we are "necessarily" have, and so it must be taken away for it to be denied as opposed to a privilege which can be granted or given to you. The subtleties in rhetoric are everything, because feminists will frame the language in a way which presumes that women are being victimized in some sense, and denied something that they already have or is owed to them, as opposed to being granted or not granted something.


Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:

P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.

P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.

P3. Males are not entitled to have sex with female nor are females entitled to have sex with males.

P4. Therefore females are not entitled to birth control.


The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!

I mean, women are not these impulsive savage wolves who can't control their sexual desire, right? And so perhaps there should be absolutely no responsibility, or precautions taken by the rest of society, to help prevent them getting pregnant, in the case that they should choose to have sex.

Right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Does this mean if you had the entitlement to get snipped, you would? Do you want it?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 4:16:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
t 11/21/2014 3:10:11 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
FaustianJustice: Okay, so from what I am understanding as the way you are framing your position is that 19 year old female whom walks into a clinic (variety of choice), they have no specific claim to birth control, even though we agree that there is a benefit in providing it.

The Fool: There is no possible way you could of got this understanding from what I've written. Did you even read past the first paragraph, because I'm not arguing about Hobby lobby, but whether or not birth control for female only is a privilege as opposed to an entitlement as a society in general, when men do not have that opportunity.

FaustianJustice: I'm not arguing anything about HL either. Hence the 'personal note' at the end. I appreciate they are not germane to the point, but had an opinion on the matter, possibly even a solution to their moral dilemma.

I went through defining the difference between being privilege and Entitlement as well. It's not hard to confuse my argument because the premises are laid out in the open. So either you deny a premise, or you deny that even if the premises are true, that the conclusion Is not true.

FaustianJustice: As well, but not very well, which is why I am trying to remove the word 'entitlement' from the premise to see if what I think you are saying and what you are saying is the same thing. MW's defition 2 of entitlement states " a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract ".

The Fool: Well now, let's not confuse the recognition of differences, as the differences themselves. Nor let this demand more clarity, that is inherent in the subject. I did not make a contrast from privilege or entitlement within my premises in conclusion, so I don't see how that would affect the logical form of the argument

Besides that I did give many examples of the differences throughout the post all the way to the end and inserted a complementary to video, which delineates the basic contrasting positions.

But here is another example:
Let's say you lend me 10 bucks, you're doing me a favor, and it's a privilege for me to be able to borrow 10 bucks. On the other hand, I now owe you 10 bucks, it's not a privilege for you to receive 10 bucks from me, because you are entitled $10 from me"

The sense of entitlement, presumes that you are owed something or deserve something Inherently or from someone else. To be privileged, is to receive something that's not necessarily owed to you by someone else.

Against The Ideologist

They are very easy to mix up and confused, and most Feminist literature abuses the differences.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 4:59:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
FaustianJustice: Peachy. That being the case, I have inserted a few points below that might complicate the issue, or possible bring further points of discussion.

The Fool: I'm expecting you to attempt to forcing an outside narrative.
I am arguing from a strictly gender rights agenda, and from what I believe to be unfair discrimination by gender.

FaustianJustice: So, this would mean men should have equal entitlement to birth control for themselves, that being chemical sterilization, or vasectomies.

The Fool: No it would mean that if one of comparable nature could not be given, and if were to grant women birth control it makes birth control a privilege, and not a right. We do have condoms.

FaustianJustice: I am not terribly sure our options are as plentiful as the opposite gender, which might be why such a percieved entitlement gains traction amongst women.

The Fool: It goes beyond merely birth control for the sake of birth control. But rather, a woman who is taking birth control, can simply have an accident, or miss a few pills, therefore getting pregnant, were men no longer has an option of whether or not he wants to have the child, and/or pay the child support for the rest of his life. So it's also a matter of reproductive rights.

Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

FaustianJustice: I don't think they want it, though, given what is available. A case for equality can't be made if men don't have skin in the game, per say.

The Fool: Therefore insofar as feminist push for woman's birth control to be a Right they are pushing for gender inequality. That"s' the point. So If a man chooses to be a bachelor, or is Gay, these men are paying a "bachelor tax" for the unnecessary birth control because woman can't use a condom's which also give protection for other diseases?

Entitlement is to be distinguished from privilege. Entitlement is something we are "necessarily" have, and so it must be taken away for it to be denied as opposed to a privilege which can be granted or given to you. The subtleties in rhetoric are everything, because feminists will frame the language in a way which presumes that women are being victimized in some sense, and denied something that they already have or is owed to them, as opposed to being granted or not granted something.

Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:
P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.
P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

FaustianJustice: And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.

The Fool: Sure if you agree that men should hold no responsibility for the child financially should she get pregnant. Nor can you have the state pay through which men pay taxes as they are still paying in someway. If not then the argument falls flat. As it is skin of their back.

P3. Males are not entitled to have sex with female nor are females entitled to have sex with males.
P4. Therefore females are not entitled to birth control.

The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!
I mean, women are not these impulsive savage wolves who can't control their sexual desire, right? And so"perhaps"there should be absolutely no responsibility, or precautions taken by the rest of society, to help prevent them getting pregnant, in the case that they should choose to have sex.
Right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
FaustianJustice: Does this mean if you had the entitlement to get snipped, you would? Do you want it?

The Fool: Lets first forget about the serious moral problem of simply inventing entitlements without a consenting contract of both parties and the fact that I refuted this already. And let's focus on the fact that any such right which only serve to advantage one gender and/or are a disadvantage the other is a gender inequality, and is technically a privilege.

That doesn't mean we can't have different but reciprocating rights.

Against The Ideologist.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 5:26:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 4:59:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
FaustianJustice: Peachy. That being the case, I have inserted a few points below that might complicate the issue, or possible bring further points of discussion.

The Fool: I'm expecting you to attempt to forcing an outside narrative.
I am arguing from a strictly gender rights agenda, and from what I believe to be unfair discrimination by gender.

FaustianJustice: So, this would mean men should have equal entitlement to birth control for themselves, that being chemical sterilization, or vasectomies.

The Fool: No it would mean that if one of comparable nature could not be given, and if were to grant women birth control it makes birth control a privilege, and not a right. We do have condoms.

Which are loathed to be used by both gender, at least by preference and timing. Heh.

FaustianJustice: I am not terribly sure our options are as plentiful as the opposite gender, which might be why such a percieved entitlement gains traction amongst women.

The Fool: It goes beyond merely birth control for the sake of birth control. But rather, a woman who is taking birth control, can simply have an accident, or miss a few pills, therefore getting pregnant, were men no longer has an option of whether or not he wants to have the child, and/or pay the child support for the rest of his life. So it's also a matter of reproductive rights.

Okay, so carrying in this vein, do you feel that removing the mandate of child support and paternal rights would be a proper trade for BC options to women? Have all the ortho and depro you want, but you will not be able to come after a man should you get knocked up. This would also apply to abortion, and should the man have a change of heart, since she WAS making use of this curious brokered agreement, he have no parental requirements or rights unless she agrees?

Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

FaustianJustice: I don't think they want it, though, given what is available. A case for equality can't be made if men don't have skin in the game, per say.

The Fool: Therefore insofar as feminist push for woman's birth control to be a Right they are pushing for gender inequality. That"s' the point. So If a man chooses to be a bachelor, or is Gay, these men are paying a "bachelor tax" for the unnecessary birth control because woman can't use a condom's which also give protection for other diseases?

So... include a trip the the urologist as the balance to getting BC? Gay or bachelor, this aids in treatement and protection. Though this might come into clash with something I suggest below.


Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:
P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.
P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

FaustianJustice: And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.

The Fool: Sure if you agree that men should hold no responsibility for the child financially should she get pregnant. Nor can you have the state pay through which men pay taxes as they are still paying in someway. If not then the argument falls flat. As it is skin of their back.

I agree, the responsibility in this arrangement would fall solely on the woman whom became pregnant.

P3. Males are not entitled to have sex with female nor are females entitled to have sex with males.
P4. Therefore females are not entitled to birth control.

The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!
I mean, women are not these impulsive savage wolves who can't control their sexual desire, right? And so"perhaps"there should be absolutely no responsibility, or precautions taken by the rest of society, to help prevent them getting pregnant, in the case that they should choose to have sex.
Right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
FaustianJustice: Does this mean if you had the entitlement to get snipped, you would? Do you want it?

The Fool: Lets first forget about the serious moral problem of simply inventing entitlements without a consenting contract of both parties and the fact that I refuted this already. And let's focus on the fact that any such right which only serve to advantage one gender and/or are a disadvantage the other is a gender inequality, and is technically a privilege.

That doesn't mean we can't have different but reciprocating rights.

I am merely positing a perfect world scenario, and why even in such an instance, I don't think it would find success, and instead trying to point out why a certain degree of latitude needs to be given in terms of finding a problem with an inequality. The short answer is that we HAVE to invent something for an equality to be established, if all desires are to be met. Since men (at least a very large portion of them) don't want a vasectomy, don't really want to use a condom, and would have misgivings about popping a pill to render them sterile, we would then have to give a look back over to parental rights, as you suggested, to be reciprocal, but would still need to hedge out instances in which public monies were NOT taken for BC. If she paid for it herself, used it, and was not spending public monies, but the option TO take public monies as part of a program for BC is in place, does the father in the situation have a responsibility to the self funded BC user's child?


Against The Ideologist.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 6:21:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 5:26:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/21/2014 4:59:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
FaustianJustice: Peachy. That being the case, I have inserted a few points below that might complicate the issue, or possible bring further points of discussion.

The Fool: I'm expecting you to attempt to forcing an outside narrative.
I am arguing from a strictly gender rights agenda, and from what I believe to be unfair discrimination by gender.

FaustianJustice: So, this would mean men should have equal entitlement to birth control for themselves, that being chemical sterilization, or vasectomies.

The Fool: No it would mean that if one of comparable nature could not be given, and if were to grant women birth control it makes birth control a privilege, and not a right. We do have condoms.

Which are loathed to be used by both gender, at least by preference and timing. Heh.

FaustianJustice: I am not terribly sure our options are as plentiful as the opposite gender, which might be why such a percieved entitlement gains traction amongst women.

The Fool: It goes beyond merely birth control for the sake of birth control. But rather, a woman who is taking birth control, can simply have an accident, or miss a few pills, therefore getting pregnant, were men no longer has an option of whether or not he wants to have the child, and/or pay the child support for the rest of his life. So it's also a matter of reproductive rights.

Okay, so carrying in this vein, do you feel that removing the mandate of child support and paternal rights would be a proper trade for BC options to women? Have all the ortho and depro you want, but you will not be able to come after a man should you get knocked up. This would also apply to abortion, and should the man have a change of heart, since she WAS making use of this curious brokered agreement, he have no parental requirements or rights unless she agrees?

Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

FaustianJustice: I don't think they want it, though, given what is available. A case for equality can't be made if men don't have skin in the game, per say.

The Fool: Therefore insofar as feminist push for woman's birth control to be a Right they are pushing for gender inequality. That"s' the point. So If a man chooses to be a bachelor, or is Gay, these men are paying a "bachelor tax" for the unnecessary birth control because woman can't use a condom's which also give protection for other diseases?

So... include a trip the the urologist as the balance to getting BC? Gay or bachelor, this aids in treatement and protection. Though this might come into clash with something I suggest below.


Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:
P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.
P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

FaustianJustice: And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.

The Fool: Sure if you agree that men should hold no responsibility for the child financially should she get pregnant. Nor can you have the state pay through which men pay taxes as they are still paying in someway. If not then the argument falls flat. As it is skin of their back.

I agree, the responsibility in this arrangement would fall solely on the woman whom became pregnant.

P3. Males are not entitled to have sex with female nor are females entitled to have sex with males.
P4. Therefore females are not entitled to birth control.

The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!
I mean, women are not these impulsive savage wolves who can't control their sexual desire, right? And so"perhaps"there should be absolutely no responsibility, or precautions taken by the rest of society, to help prevent them getting pregnant, in the case that they should choose to have sex.
Right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
FaustianJustice: Does this mean if you had the entitlement to get snipped, you would? Do you want it?

The Fool: Lets first forget about the serious moral problem of simply inventing entitlements without a consenting contract of both parties and the fact that I refuted this already. And let's focus on the fact that any such right which only serve to advantage one gender and/or are a disadvantage the other is a gender inequality, and is technically a privilege.

That doesn't mean we can't have different but reciprocating rights.

I am merely positing a perfect world scenario, and why even in such an instance, I don't think it would find success, and instead trying to point out why a certain degree of latitude needs to be given in terms of finding a problem with an inequality. The short answer is that we HAVE to invent something for an equality to be established, if all desires are to be met. Since men (at least a very large portion of them) don't want a vasectomy, don't really want to use a condom, and would have misgivings about popping a pill to render them sterile, we would then have to give a look back over to parental rights, as you suggested, to be reciprocal, but would still need to hedge out instances in which public monies were NOT taken for BC. If she paid for it herself, used it, and was not spending public monies, but the option TO take public monies as part of a program for BC is in place, does the father in the situation have a responsibility to the self funded BC user's child?


Against The Ideologist.

The Fool: I will respond in the morning, but I can see you completely digressing from the birth control being a Privilege or an entitlement. And I'm only going to respond to questions concerning that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 6:39:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 4:59:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
FaustianJustice: Peachy. That being the case, I have inserted a few points below that might complicate the issue, or possible bring further points of discussion.

The Fool: I'm expecting you to attempt to forcing an outside narrative.
I am arguing from a strictly gender rights agenda, and from what I believe to be unfair discrimination by gender.

FaustianJustice: So, this would mean men should have equal entitlement to birth control for themselves, that being chemical sterilization, or vasectomies.

The Fool: No it would mean that if one of comparable nature could not be given, and if were to grant women birth control it makes birth control a privilege, and not a right. We do have condoms.

FaustianJustice:: Which are loathed to be used by both gender, at least by preference and timing. Heh.

The Fool: I agree, but were talking about entitlements not privileges. Although, I know a few women who are very against taking birth control, because of their beliefs in possible unknown long-term effects, which of course is another thing feminists would complain about at the same time as arguing that women are entitled to birth control as opposed to men.

FaustianJustice: I am not terribly sure our options are as plentiful as the opposite gender, which might be why such a percieved entitlement gains traction amongst women.

The Fool: It goes beyond merely birth control for the sake of birth control. But rather, a woman who is taking birth control, can simply have an accident, or miss a few pills, therefore getting pregnant, were men no longer has an option of whether or not he wants to have the child, and/or pay the child support for the rest of his life. So it's also a matter of reproductive rights.

FaustianJustice: : Okay, so carrying in this vein, do you feel that removing the mandate of child support and paternal rights would be a proper trade for BC options to women?

The Fool: No, because this kind of birth control in particular, is not a necessity. Nor is it limited to the above example.

FaustianJustice: Have all the ortho and depro you want, but you will not be able to come after a man should you get knocked up. This would also apply to abortion, and should the man have a change of heart, since she WAS making use of this curious brokered agreement, he have no parental requirements or rights unless she agrees?

The Fool: No, that would be comparing apples and oranges. As there are still difficulties, if the state picks up the responsibility, since well Men will still be paying through taxes. Including People who do not have or want any kids.


Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

FaustianJustice: I don't think they want it, though, given what is available. A case for equality can't be made if men don't have skin in the game, per say.

The Fool: Therefore insofar as feminist push for woman's birth control to be a Right they are pushing for gender inequality. That"s' the point. So If a man chooses to be a bachelor, or is Gay, these men are paying a "bachelor tax" for the unnecessary birth control because woman can't use a condom's which also give protection for other diseases?

FaustianJustice: : So... include a trip the the urologist as the balance to getting BC? Gay or bachelor, this aids in treatement and protection. Though this might come into clash with something I suggest below.

The Fool: The key point, is that there are other options, and that it is a luxury, form of birth control.

Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:
P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.
P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

FaustianJustice: And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.


The Fool: : That doesn't mean we can't have different but reciprocating rights.

FaustianJustice: : I am merely positing a perfect world scenario, and why even in such an instance, I don't think it would find success, and instead trying to point out why a certain degree of latitude needs to be given in terms of finding a problem with an inequality. The short answer is that we HAVE to invent something for an equality to be established, if all desires are to be met.

The Fool: Right but the question is who is inventing these constructs? And who agrees or not. Either way, these do not constitute a positive argument why birth control is an entitlement and not a privilege.

FaustianJustice: Since men (at least a very large portion of them) don't want a vasectomy, don't really want to use a condom, and would have misgivings about popping a pill to render them sterile, we would then have to give a look back over to parental rights, as you suggested, to be reciprocal, but would still need to hedge out instances in which public monies were NOT taken for BC.

The Fool: I agree, but let's be careful on what you mean by sterile. An empty chamber, is not necessarily sterile as one would be after emptying too many rounds.

FaustianJustice: If she paid for it herself, used it, and was not spending public monies, but the option TO take public monies as part of a program for BC is in place, does the father in the situation have a responsibility to the self funded BC user's child?

The Fool: As I've argued, I'm not against birth control being something which is covered, as a sort of privilege but the key argument here is the difference between being owed birth control by others or by the state.


Against The Ideologist.

What I understand your argument to be is, "look, it is often advantageous for both of us if women are granted birth-control, therefore woman ought be entitled to Birth control"

Fair?

To which I would respond,"look, insofar as there is no equivalent for men, despite it being advantageous for both of us, it"s not an entitlement, but a privilege. I believe we should/ought have that privilege, but it's not a necessity that we need to be entitled to as a kind of unalienable birthright. In other words, we cannot demand, or have justified anger at those who do not want to participate in this deal, nor would it be moral to legally force them to adhere to it, but I understand..
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 6:40:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 10:25:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
FaustianJustice: So, this would mean men should have equal entitlement to birth control for themselves, that being chemical sterilization, or vasectomies.

The Fool: No it would mean that if one of comparable nature could not be given, and if were to grant women birth control it makes birth control a privilege, and not a right. We do have condoms.


FaustianJustice: I am not terribly sure our options are as plentiful as the opposite gender, which might be why such a percieved entitlement gains traction amongst women.

The Fool: It goes beyond merely birth control for the sake of birth control. But rather, a woman who is taking birth control, can simply have an accident, or miss a few pills, therefore getting pregnant, were men no longer has an option of whether or not he wants to have the child, and/or pay the child support for the rest of his life. So it's also a matter of reproductive rights.

FaustianJustice: : Okay, so carrying in this vein, do you feel that removing the mandate of child support and paternal rights would be a proper trade for BC options to women?

The Fool: No, because this kind of birth control in particular, is not a necessity. Nor is it limited to the above example.



Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

FaustianJustice: I don't think they want it, though, given what is available. A case for equality can't be made if men don't have skin in the game, per say.

The Fool: Therefore insofar as feminist push for woman's birth control to be a Right they are pushing for gender inequality. That"s' the point. So If a man chooses to be a bachelor, or is Gay, these men are paying a "bachelor tax" for the unnecessary birth control because woman can't use a condom's which also give protection for other diseases?

FaustianJustice: : So... include a trip the the urologist as the balance to getting BC? Gay or bachelor, this aids in treatement and protection. Though this might come into clash with something I suggest below.

The Fool: The key point, is that there are other options, and that it is a luxury, form of birth control.

So then what ISN'T a luxury form of BC that would have a gender equal, or what would be an equal trade off for what is a percieved to be inequality on its face?

Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:
P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.
P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

FaustianJustice: And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.


The Fool: : That doesn't mean we can't have different but reciprocating rights.

FaustianJustice: : I am merely positing a perfect world scenario, and why even in such an instance, I don't think it would find success, and instead trying to point out why a certain degree of latitude needs to be given in terms of finding a problem with an inequality. The short answer is that we HAVE to invent something for an equality to be established, if all desires are to be met.

The Fool: Right but the question is who is inventing these constructs? And who agrees or not. Either way, these do not constitute a positive argument why birth control is an entitlement and not a privilege.

And 'qwit-yer-bitchin' won't stick as a reply. That is why there is a discussion.

FaustianJustice: Since men (at least a very large portion of them) don't want a vasectomy, don't really want to use a condom, and would have misgivings about popping a pill to render them sterile, we would then have to give a look back over to parental rights, as you suggested, to be reciprocal, but would still need to hedge out instances in which public monies were NOT taken for BC.

The Fool: I agree, but let's be careful on what you mean by sterile. An empty chamber, is not necessarily sterile as one would be after emptying too many rounds.

Agreed, just trying to bring something to the table with regards to an equal oral contraceptive.



Against The Ideologist.

What I understand your argument to be is, "look, it is often advantageous for both of us if women are granted birth-control, therefore woman ought be entitled to Birth control"

Fair?

To which I would respond,"look, insofar as there is no equivalent for men, despite it being advantageous for both of us, it"s not an entitlement, but a privilege. I believe we should/ought have that privilege, but it's not a necessity that we need to be entitled to as a kind of unalienable birthright. In other words, we cannot demand, or have justified anger at those who do not want to participate in this deal, nor would it be moral to legally force them to adhere to it, but I understand..
<(89)


Well, no desirable equivalent for men. If the end result is prevention of pregnancies that is temporary, then there are options. As time marches on there might be even easier options, but its a curious situation we have where the overwhelming majority of oral contraceptives are for females, and the oral products for men are designed to provide erections rather than remove them (except in the case of 'suggestion' by a court if you know what I mean). Without connecting the dots, surely you must see the framing by which [scrolls up] 'feminsits' view this.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 11:40:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

The Fool: The key point, is that there are other options, and that it is a luxury, form of birth control.

So then what ISN'T a luxury form of BC that would have a gender equal, or what would be an equal trade off for what is a percieved to be inequality on its face?

The Fool: Condoms... Is that not obvious?

It's not food where like you if you don't eat you die.


Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:
P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.
P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

FaustianJustice: And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.


The Fool: : That doesn't mean we can't have different but reciprocating rights.

FaustianJustice: : I am merely positing a perfect world scenario, and why even in such an instance, I don't think it would find success, and instead trying to point out why a certain degree of latitude needs to be given in terms of finding a problem with an inequality. The short answer is that we HAVE to invent something for an equality to be established, if all desires are to be met.

The Fool: Right but the question is who is inventing these constructs? And who agrees or not. Either way, these do not constitute a positive argument why birth control is an entitlement and not a privilege.

FaustianJustice:: And 'qwit-yer-bitchin' won't stick as a reply. That is why there is a discussion.

The Fool: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm getting at is that I've already accounted for the argument that you're bringing up, before you even brought it up. So there's a sense in which this is redundant.

Recall:
"The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!"

I gave a solid deductive argument, and so far, the only threat to my argument has been your comment on the second premise, but you didn't even attempt to dismiss the premise, so there's no technically there is no threat to my general overall argument.

FaustianJustice: Since men (at least a very large portion of them) don't want a vasectomy, don't really want to use a condom, and would have misgivings about popping a pill to render them sterile, we would then have to give a look back over to parental rights, as you suggested, to be reciprocal, but would still need to hedge out instances in which public monies were NOT taken for BC.

The Fool: I agree, but let's be careful on what you mean by sterile. An empty chamber, is not necessarily sterile as one would be after emptying too many rounds.

FaustianJustice: : Agreed, just trying to bring something to the table with regards to an equal oral contraceptive.

The Fool: No problem, it's just that It's out of the scope of what I mean by entitlement versus privilege.


What I understand your argument to be is, "look, it is often advantageous for both of us if women are granted birth-control, therefore woman ought be entitled to Birth control"

Fair?

To which I would respond,"look, insofar as there is no equivalent for men, despite it being advantageous for both of us, it"s not an entitlement, but a privilege. I believe we should/ought have that privilege, but it's not a necessity that we need to be entitled to as a kind of unalienable birthright. In other words, we cannot demand, or have justified anger at those who do not want to participate in this deal, nor would it be moral to legally force them to adhere to it, but I understand..
<(89)


FaustianJustice: Well, no desirable equivalent for men. If the end result is prevention of pregnancies that is temporary, then there are options. As time marches on there might be even easier options, but its a curious situation we have where the overwhelming majority of oral contraceptives are for females, and the oral products for men are designed to provide erections rather than remove them (except in the case of 'suggestion' by a court if you know what I mean).

The Fool: An erection, does not equal desire, and in a world where we are having more casual sex, shorter but more frequent relationships and the erosion of marriage having your own contraceptive gives one greater control in preventing having a child.. It is men that tend to play the quantity as opposed to quality game, and so it would only give them more freedom and security. Having a male contraceptive empowers men with control over their own reproduction in a way that they don't have to rely upon the women while respecting women's right to choose to have an abortion or not if she were to get pregnant. Treating birth control as a Female entitlement while men do not have a birth control only acts to slow the progress of developing one for men as well. It's not that undesired as you might think. The world is changing.

Against The Ideologist.

FaustianJustice: Without connecting the dots, surely you must see the framing by which [scrolls up] 'feminsits' view this.

The Fool: Yes it's called misandry.
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 12:01:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 11:40:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: The key point, is that there are other options, and that it is a luxury, form of birth control.

So then what ISN'T a luxury form of BC that would have a gender equal, or what would be an equal trade off for what is a percieved to be inequality on its face?

The Fool: Condoms... Is that not obvious?

It's not food where like you if you don't eat you die.

Male and female, I am assuming, then, each being present, each gender entitled to each. Problem solved?

Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:
P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.
P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

FaustianJustice: And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.


The Fool: : That doesn't mean we can't have different but reciprocating rights.

FaustianJustice: : I am merely positing a perfect world scenario, and why even in such an instance, I don't think it would find success, and instead trying to point out why a certain degree of latitude needs to be given in terms of finding a problem with an inequality. The short answer is that we HAVE to invent something for an equality to be established, if all desires are to be met.

The Fool: Right but the question is who is inventing these constructs? And who agrees or not. Either way, these do not constitute a positive argument why birth control is an entitlement and not a privilege.

FaustianJustice:: And 'qwit-yer-bitchin' won't stick as a reply. That is why there is a discussion.

The Fool: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm getting at is that I've already accounted for the argument that you're bringing up, before you even brought it up. So there's a sense in which this is redundant.

Recall:
"The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!"

I gave a solid deductive argument, and so far, the only threat to my argument has been your comment on the second premise, but you didn't even attempt to dismiss the premise, so there's no technically there is no threat to my general overall argument.

Were I to understand what you are saying, the opposition is irrational/illogical for their demands. How does presenting a rational reason as to why their desires are irrational seem like its a valid place to start? XD




The Fool: Treating birth control as a Female entitlement while men do not have a birth control only acts to slow the progress of developing one for men as well. It's not that undesired as you might think. The world is changing.

Its not as undesired as I might think, granted, but I know what the desire is, and what its not. The tech isn't there yet, but based on what language I think you are laying down, is that there would be a market for it, and it would also solve this quandry.


Against The Ideologist.

FaustianJustice: Without connecting the dots, surely you must see the framing by which [scrolls up] 'feminsits' view this.

The Fool: Yes it's called misandry.
<(89)

I think I would call that market driven capitalism. Guys weren't searching for a pill, pregnancy ultimately wasn't THAT much of a problem to them. Which do you think would drive the market gender wise?

Now, to be fair, I am not neck deep in this. I am not 102 and living in Canada, so my finger isn't on the pulse of women's issues, like say, a mid 20's dude having just graduated from college, or a young lady that just got married. A lot of what I am basing this discussion on is coming from your representation of the opposition, so please understand that a lot of what I offer up might not fit the bill.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 1:55:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 12:01:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/21/2014 11:40:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: The key point, is that there are other options, and that it is a luxury, form of birth control.

So then what ISN'T a luxury form of BC that would have a gender equal, or what would be an equal trade off for what is a percieved to be inequality on its face?

The Fool: Condoms... Is that not obvious?

It's not food where like you if you don't eat you die.

FaustianJustice : Male and female, I am assuming, then, each being present, each gender entitled to each. Problem solved?

The Fool: It wouldn't be something nonparticipants like religious people, would be in debt to us. By virtue of it being owed to us. It needs to be comparable, and/or necessary, it cannot be before basic needs, which are not being met in other areas. Such as basic shelter.


Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:
P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.
P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

FaustianJustice: And ONLY females can get pregnant by sex with males, so why would a male have any impetus for desiring birth control: he doesn't suffer the consequences. This is what I meant by 'skin in the game'. Supply and demand, sort of thing. No appreciable amount of guys have been breaking down the doors for ways to shoot blanks, and if they don't shoot blanks, its not their belly that bulges. Responsibility is deflected in this regard.


The Fool: : That doesn't mean we can't have different but reciprocating rights.

FaustianJustice: : I am merely positing a perfect world scenario, and why even in such an instance, I don't think it would find success, and instead trying to point out why a certain degree of latitude needs to be given in terms of finding a problem with an inequality. The short answer is that we HAVE to invent something for an equality to be established, if all desires are to be met.

The Fool: Right but the question is who is inventing these constructs? And who agrees or not. Either way, these do not constitute a positive argument why birth control is an entitlement and not a privilege.

FaustianJustice:: And 'qwit-yer-bitchin' won't stick as a reply. That is why there is a discussion.

The Fool: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm getting at is that I've already accounted for the argument that you're bringing up, before you even brought it up. So there's a sense in which this is redundant.

Recall:
"The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!"

I gave a solid deductive argument, and so far, the only threat to my argument has been your comment on the second premise, but you didn't even attempt to dismiss the premise, so there's no technically there is no threat to my general overall argument.

FaustianJustice:: Were I to understand what you are saying, the opposition is irrational/illogical for their demands.

The Fool: That would be great if he didn't fit every description of any argument from almost any opposition.
It's not irrational to simply demand such contraceptives, but rather, there is no rational argument which can justify it as an "entitlement" without of course creating a double standard, which is the opposite of equal Rights, especially from a group which defines themselves as those seeking equal rights.

I think this is a matter of understanding, moral concepts, such as entitlement, rights, privileges. As there is a sense in which they are synonymous, and yet distinct depending on the angle that you're looking at them.

FaustianJustice: How does presenting a rational reason as to why their desires are irrational seem like its a valid place to start? XD

The Fool: I don't know, how was presenting a loaded question not a fallacy?
<(8D)


The Fool: Treating birth control as a Female entitlement while men do not have a birth control only acts to slow the progress of developing one for men as well. It's not that undesired as you might think. The world is changing.

FaustianJustice: : Its not as undesired as I might think, granted, but I know what the desire is, and what its not. The tech isn't there yet, but based on what language I think you are laying down, is that there would be a market for it, and it would also solve this quandry.

The Fool: It would solve the, Equal Rights quandary.

FaustianJustice: Without connecting the dots, surely you must see the framing by which [scrolls up] 'feminsits' view this.

The Fool: Yes it's called misandry.
<(89)

FaustianJustice:: I think I would call that market driven capitalism. Guys weren't searching for a pill, pregnancy ultimately wasn't THAT much of a problem to them. Which do you think would drive the market gender wise?

The Fool: One can say the same thing about woman working at home. As, feminism is a result of and originally very small minority of women, who were unhappy with their conditions. But the world is evolving and things change, and were forced to change with it or be swept away in the current.

FaustianJustice: : Now, to be fair, I am not neck deep in this. I am not 102 and living in Canada, so my finger isn't on the pulse of women's issues, like say, a mid 20's dude having just graduated from college, or a young lady that just got married.

A lot of what I am basing this discussion on is coming from your representation of the opposition, so please understand that a lot of what I offer up might not fit the bill.

The Fool: I'm simply making a case against the claim that female, by virtue of being female, are entitled (Owe by society) to be supplied with oral contraceptive, while men do not have the same options. This is distinct from, the fact that it's advantageous and that we ought do so. And I've supplied a complementary videos where the opposition is making the very case I'm refuting. Let's assume an opposition does not exist even. It's irrelevant, to defend or refute the claim in itself.

It's a closed system, where if you understand the definitions, understand the claims, and agree that there is currently no reciprocal male contraceptive, and that it's not a necessity, then it follows deductively that being supplied such a contraceptive by the general population (especially when a less luxurious one exists) is a Privilege, and not a Right.

What makes the difference between a right or privilege, is not a matter of preference or desire. Yes one may argue something like, if one likes apples, and one likes oranges, it's not really fair to simply force them both to have apples. But that's not really the case here.

Let's say, we were talking about treatment for breast cancer, men do not get, then that would be a different case, because it would be necessary to one's well-being, but, being supplied contraception doesn't fit any of those conditions, and so fails to meet the criteria necessary for entitlement.

Against The Ideologist

Or at least that's my best case argument.. Take it for what it's worth. And take care.
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 10:01:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 2:58:01 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/21/2014 1:22:17 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Entitlement To Birth Control

The Fool: Feminists generally argue that women are entitled for birth control and this debate has especially become popular from a fairly recent incident where the courts agreed that corporations, such as "hobby lobby" do not have to cover birth control as part of their insurance policy..

And of course feminist went berserk.

I am continuing this argument from a previous thread where I believe the focus of the discussion has gotten lost, and I would like to keep the focus as clear as possible.

The first thing I would like to make clear is the difference in agenda between me and Jimmy.

Jimmy's is what MRA's call a Trad/Con (Traditionalist/Conservative) which is similar to "Hobby lobby" who argued that since contraception was against their religious views they should not have to supply it.

I am arguing from a strictly gender rights agenda, and from what I believe to be unfair discrimination by gender, although I do agree with the logic behind Jimmy's argument does hold.

Now this argument is not in regards to what is advantageous or disadvantageous to society, or whether they should be something covered in healthcare, but whether or not women are as feminists declare "entitled" to birth control, when men do not equally have the opportunity.

Entitlement is to be distinguished from privilege. Entitlement is something we are "necessarily" have, and so it must be taken away for it to be denied as opposed to a privilege which can be granted or given to you. The subtleties in rhetoric are everything, because feminists will frame the language in a way which presumes that women are being victimized in some sense, and denied something that they already have or is owed to them, as opposed to being granted or not granted something.


Argument Against Birth control Entitlement:

P1. The purpose of birth control, is to prevent woman from getting pregnant.

P2. Females can only get pregnant by sex with males.

P3. Males are not entitled to have sex with female nor are females entitled to have sex with males.

P4. Therefore females are not entitled to birth control.


The key word here is "Entitled." Remember that I acknowledge that it may be advantageous for society that woman get free birth control, just as advantageous as it would be if men got free condoms. And I agree we should be covered in most cases. But this is not about advantages, and or privileges but "entitlement." The difference between "I could use some more money" Vs "Bitch better have my money". Big difference!

I mean, women are not these impulsive savage wolves who can't control their sexual desire, right? And so perhaps there should be absolutely no responsibility, or precautions taken by the rest of society, to help prevent them getting pregnant, in the case that they should choose to have sex. Right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The difference between "it would be nicer and/or helpful if society does this", and "society owes me this! You bastards!"

Big difference! For some consider the former claim as blaming the victim.

Against The Ideologist

The difference between "thank you!" and "Fvck you!"




Okay, so from what I am understanding as the way you are framing your position is that 19 year old female whom walks into a clinic (variety of choice), they have no specific claim to birth control, even though we agree that there is a benefit in providing it.

In light of this, my clarification with HL, and the opinions I made previous were all related to an understanding of an employer/employee benefit, or some exchange of services. This would make the person very much entitled to (in this instance) birth control, as it was a legal requirement, and a benefit of employ.

Personal note: HL got my grape due to the cost. If they don't want to provide XYZ on religions grounds, great. Broker a price with the insurance Co, give that money directly to the employee, and tell the employee a seperate plan is available. Instead, they are trying to take a bizarre moral high ground about being forced to supply something they are not actually supplying. Were one to be generous in the definition of 'supply', its still a stretch, as the employee would still be 2 steps removed from HL on the matter. HL states they don't want to provide means of access, and yet, currency is a means of access. It just all seems... well, needlessly complicated when there are easier avenues of complying with the law and keeping their morals intact.

I'm going to ask a question that we both (should) know the answer to:
Which gender, male or female, has a bigger desire for sex?
Hint: If you answer male, then you are correct.

The solution, obviously, is for nobody who isn't a married couple to have sex. Is this oppressive to women? Well, as it doesn't seem that they care for sex nearly as much as males do, and males are in fact capable of self-restraint, then the answer is no. Telling women not to have sex is not particularly oppressive towards them.
If anything, this arrangement is "worse" for males, who would never have sex until the day they get married.

This will encourage more marriages, which in turn will lead to a wealthier, healthier, happier population.
http://www.al6400.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 10:11:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

I'm going to ask a question that we both (should) know the answer to:
Which gender, male or female, has a bigger desire for sex?
Hint: If you answer male, then you are correct.

The solution, obviously, is for nobody who isn't a married couple to have sex. Is this oppressive to women? Well, as it doesn't seem that they care for sex nearly as much as males do, and males are in fact capable of self-restraint, then the answer is no. Telling women not to have sex is not particularly oppressive towards them.
If anything, this arrangement is "worse" for males, who would never have sex until the day they get married.

This will encourage more marriages, which in turn will lead to a wealthier, healthier, happier population.
http://www.al6400.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

a) why does it change for a married couple
b) subjective
c) subjective x2
d) clearly not going to happen.
e) marrying some one just to get sex is THE worst reason to marry some one, which is what your post implies.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 10:15:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 10:11:04 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I'm going to ask a question that we both (should) know the answer to:
Which gender, male or female, has a bigger desire for sex?
Hint: If you answer male, then you are correct.

The solution, obviously, is for nobody who isn't a married couple to have sex. Is this oppressive to women? Well, as it doesn't seem that they care for sex nearly as much as males do, and males are in fact capable of self-restraint, then the answer is no. Telling women not to have sex is not particularly oppressive towards them.
If anything, this arrangement is "worse" for males, who would never have sex until the day they get married.

This will encourage more marriages, which in turn will lead to a wealthier, healthier, happier population.
http://www.al6400.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...


a) why does it change for a married couple
b) subjective
c) subjective x2
d) clearly not going to happen.
e) marrying some one just to get sex is THE worst reason to marry some one, which is what your post implies.

The issue at hand is women and birth control. Do you disagree that women generally have very little desire for sexual contact? Do you disagree that it is in a single woman's best interest to not get pregnant?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 10:18:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 10:15:06 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/22/2014 10:11:04 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I'm going to ask a question that we both (should) know the answer to:
Which gender, male or female, has a bigger desire for sex?
Hint: If you answer male, then you are correct.

The solution, obviously, is for nobody who isn't a married couple to have sex. Is this oppressive to women? Well, as it doesn't seem that they care for sex nearly as much as males do, and males are in fact capable of self-restraint, then the answer is no. Telling women not to have sex is not particularly oppressive towards them.
If anything, this arrangement is "worse" for males, who would never have sex until the day they get married.

This will encourage more marriages, which in turn will lead to a wealthier, healthier, happier population.
http://www.al6400.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...


a) why does it change for a married couple
b) subjective
c) subjective x2
d) clearly not going to happen.
e) marrying some one just to get sex is THE worst reason to marry some one, which is what your post implies.

The issue at hand is women and birth control. Do you disagree that women generally have very little desire for sexual contact?

Goal post move, which is why I was polite enough to call it 'subjective' in the first place. Women enjoy sex. Women want sex. Women will initiate sex. Women will go out, socially, for the purpose of a random hook up. Frequency to the male population is immaterial, as it happens, frequently, just not AS frequently as in the male population.

Do you disagree that it is in a single woman's best interest to not get pregnant?
Of course.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 3:11:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm going to ask a question that we both (should) know the answer to:
Which gender, male or female, has a bigger desire for sex?
Hint: If you answer male, then you are correct.

The solution, obviously, is for nobody who isn't a married couple to have sex. Is this oppressive to women? Well, as it doesn't seem that they care for sex nearly as much as males do, and males are in fact capable of self-restraint, then the answer is no. Telling women not to have sex is not particularly oppressive towards them.
If anything, this arrangement is "worse" for males, who would never have sex until the day they get married.

This will encourage more marriages, which in turn will lead to a wealthier, healthier, happier population.
http://www.al6400.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 3:25:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 3:11:10 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I'm going to ask a question that we both (should) know the answer to:
Which gender, male or female, has a bigger desire for sex?
Hint: If you answer male, then you are correct.

The solution, obviously, is for nobody who isn't a married couple to have sex. Is this oppressive to women? Well, as it doesn't seem that they care for sex nearly as much as males do, and males are in fact capable of self-restraint, then the answer is no. Telling women not to have sex is not particularly oppressive towards them.
If anything, this arrangement is "worse" for males, who would never have sex until the day they get married.

This will encourage more marriages, which in turn will lead to a wealthier, healthier, happier population.
http://www.al6400.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...



Against The Ideologist

What's the video about?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 4:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 3:25:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/22/2014 3:11:10 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I'm going to ask a question that we both (should) know the answer to:
Which gender, male or female, has a bigger desire for sex?
Hint: If you answer male, then you are correct.

The solution, obviously, is for nobody who isn't a married couple to have sex. Is this oppressive to women? Well, as it doesn't seem that they care for sex nearly as much as males do, and males are in fact capable of self-restraint, then the answer is no. Telling women not to have sex is not particularly oppressive towards them.
If anything, this arrangement is "worse" for males, who would never have sex until the day they get married.

This will encourage more marriages, which in turn will lead to a wealthier, healthier, happier population.
http://www.al6400.com...
http://www.nydailynews.com...



Against The Ideologist

What's the video about?

Feminism and The Erosion of Marriage
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 5:43:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is missed it this birth control debate is that prevention of pregnancy is not the only use of the medication. They are also used to treat the following:
Amenorrhea-absence of menstrual periods
Polycystic ovary syndrome- cysts of the ovaries that can lead to cancer if not treated
Primary ovarian insufficiency- Menopause happening to early in life
Menopause
Female sexual dysfunction
Endometriosis- periods that are so painful its debilitating
menorrhagia- periods that are to heavy
hirsutism- to much hair
alopecia- hair loss
acne
Prevention of ovarian cancer, and uterine cancer

905 of the time when something is wrong with a woman's reproductive system the treatment is birth control. Have we really gotten to the point that prevention of cancer or other medical treatments are less important than pushing a political agenda. Also fyi the Hobby Lobby case ruled that is ok not to insure the from of birth control used to treat Polycystic ovary syndrome.