Quote from: myrkul on August 24, 2012, 09:34:39 AM

Protip: When insulting someone's intelligence, spelling and grammar are important, lest you appear to be speaking to a mirror. The correct pluralization of vagina is "vaginae," or the more common "vaginas." An apostrophe before the s makes it possessive.

At least I got one thing right; you're still an idiot.

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 24, 2012, 11:30:09 AM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on August 24, 2012, 07:34:37 AM

Men can still be physiologically satisfied by said rubber sheath, because all they're really physiologically driven to is to orgasm. Women are physiologically driven to want babies, which nothing can satisfy except having or adopting one. I suppose they could adopt a man and they'd essentially have one too.

Even if this was true, no civilized society should base policy on this. We've made the decision not to act on people's "tendencies" based on biological groups they belong to but instead to consider them as individuals.

Say we found a group of people we could identify by DNA who were physiologically driven to steal, but individuals were quite capable of not stealing despite this gene. We wouldn't exclude such people from positions of trust just based on their having this gene. In fact, we wouldn't treat such people differently at all. So long as it's ultimately an action with an individual's conscious control, we care what they choose to do as individuals, not what their biology "pressures" them to do.

A civilized society focuses on individual's chosen actions, not the biologic forces driving those actions. Many women choose not to have children and have no children. They shouldn't be treated differently because they had to make that choice.

I'm actually arguing this. I'm pointing out that both genders have equal biological cravings that trivialize the decision process so much that we have to focus on their consequences, and not the mental processes behind a decision. The fact that women have more ways to not have a baby is a bystander to the fact that their decision to have one has little to do with the level of contraception available. It started here:

Quote from: Hunterbunter on August 23, 2012, 01:22:10 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 23, 2012, 11:50:10 AM

Quote from: herzmeister on August 23, 2012, 10:14:24 AM

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after

Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.

I have two problems with what you've said:

1) Men don't have an option to become pregnant. While they don't themselves, they can get a willing partner pregnant easily enough, and this can easily become a reason to become less productive at work - or at least, less able and willing to put in overtime. Were you saying women were lucky they got pregnant so they didn't have to work? Are you married with kids by any chance?

2) That women are any different to men when it comes to decision making. Your statement is unnecessarily sexist. "A man does not have to impregnate his wife unless he believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" works perfectly well also.