I actually think the driving example is a perfect example of how the underlying principles are not universal, since the levels of morally acceptable aggressiveness on the part of the driver and the extent to which is it pedestrians' and other drivers' job to get out of your way rather than your job to drive "nicely" varies a lot by culture.
...or on the other hand you could say that whether it's India, Italy, the Netherlands, England, the US, or Zimbabwe, there's at least a general consensus you shouldn't be killing people with your car. Except, perhaps, if you are very very wealthy. the moral Schelling point towards not killing other people who are ambiguously maybe from your tribe or a neutral tribe or an enemy tribe not currently actively engaged in hostilities against you, on a random Tuesday, does seem reasonably strong-ish
You can either shoot the dad and now have two single moms, doubling the problem, or you think that when a man cheats on his wife either his wife or the woman he cheated with and impregnated (who he may have lied to and might not have known he was married) should be shot. Which one was the intended meaning of your comment?
Thank you for sharing (here and in real life). And I hope your continued recovery goes smoothly.
Where I live abortion is allowed as a blanket rule if the mother is under 18, the mother is married but the child is not her husband's, the child is a product of incest or rape, the pregnancy is a threat to the health of the mother, or the child has been identified to have a serious disability.
All other cases of abortion need to get past an ethics panel to be allowed.
I consider this to be a very good state of affairs and a very reasonable solution that everyone should be ok with. I admit not everyone agrees with me, on either side, but blanket statements about no one on the prochoice side being happy with reasonable compromises because they want a family planning card is just you strawmanning your opponents.
Thanks for sharing.
This gets close to but never really actually states the argument I always felt was missing in abortion arguments.
I mean I still remember seeing some lengthy debate back and forth about how a museum is entitled to kick out some guy who decided to squat there, and then arguing that babies don't decided to squat, it's decided for them, and that you can't kick our the squatter if doing so would kill them, and none of this was like "well women's bodies aren't actually museums and hosting a baby inside your body is a lot worse than hosting a tapeworm". I kept remembering those arguments when pregnant because they planted so much of my subsconscious belief that pregnancy was just some minor temporary inconvenience.
Like even in this article it doesn't really go do far as to say "is it ethical to torture someone for nine months against their will to save a life?" She still is pretty focused on cases where it's life-saving or where the suffering from the itching is bad enough two people killed themselves over it. Probably because she thinks that's the stronger argument?
Yeah, in fact I did the same till age 8 or 10 so it's jumping the gun. I'm too used to thinking in terms of "a boys room" and "a girls room".
Ugh but closets. Whatever. Need to just resign myself to furniture constellations being something I'll have to tweak and change and tweak and change.
I'm not blaming men, just noting them as a category of people not talking about it that doesn't fit "well it's because they regret having kids but can't say that so can't talk about it". Men have wives and see their wife go through XYZ during pregnancy but it seemingly doesn't get discussed during public discourse.
Your point re doctors is very true. Expected = irrelevant.
Yes? I feel like you're reading my comment out of context.
We were discussing
- A specific individual nowadays for whom the odds were 1%, not 10%, but who was discussing hypothetical 10%
- The past during specific time periods when maternal mortality spiked (because they got medical care and their medical care didn't wash their hands)
Edit: no actually I see your point. Yes, it makes no sense to invoke evolution for it for temporary periods (and in fairness when it spiked people surely didn't realize what was happening)
Nah I don't buy that as adequate explanation.
- Doesn't explain women who get severe temporary or permanent health problems but continue to have children (so it clearly wasn't enough to cause them to regret it) not talking about those problems
- Doesn't explain medical professionals who see these women but have no personal stake in their life choices not talking about it
- Doesn't explain men not talking about it
- Doesn't explain how little is done to alleviate or solve it
At the end of the day, I have permanent tooth problems because of how much i vomited during pregnancy. I agree that I wouldn't discuss this with my child, at her current age, but I'm not unwilling to discuss it at all, see eg here. I very much regret not knowing, going in, that this was something that could happen, and for having walked into pregnancy with the totally mistaken belief I just needed to get through it and all the suffering was temporary (for one thing, I'd have dumped the doctor who didn't take my vomiting seriously and found a doctor who would prescribe me something to reduce the vomiting, if I'd known of the lifelong negative effects extreme repeated vomiting has. And I have an excuse for not knowing — why didn't my doctor? We're back to why women's health is treated as an afterthought in medical care, but then we have "even when discussing specifically women's health problems and specifically how they're neglected by the medical establishment we're still not talking about one of the most major medical events many women will experience before they hit old age, the one that will most massively negatively impact their long term health"
Like going back to my mention elsewhere of becoming pro choice as soon as I became pregnant — how is this not part of the discussion? All the prochoice activists can't mention the 25% odds a teen pregnancy ends with the teen girl now needing to wear special underpants for the rest of her life lest she pee herself in public? Oh she might have a psychotic episode from all the hormones, possibly one permanently affecting her for the rest of her life, but that's not at all relevant to the ethical debate we're all having here? Like ok maybe the pro-life people don't want to mention it because it doesn't help their case but I read SO much online debate about this topic and all the discussion about the right to choose and the right to control one's own body and aside from "sometimes you need to abort to save the mom's life" the idea of permanently physically harming the mother just never came up. Which is. Bizarre.
Any theories as to why?
Amongst my friends, I know we sometimes don't talk about it if there's anyone struggling with infertility in the room, since it seems insensitive. But that doesn't really suffice to explain a strange seemingly culture-wide taboo. Especially as you mentioned in spaces where that kind of topic seems relevant.
I have weird pseudopsych theories like "people instinctively shy away from thinking about how much suffering they possibly caused their own mother" but I don't really take that seriously as a real explanation... and "it's a conspiracy of silence to keep the human race going" is pretty absurd... And something like "oh well it's a topic that makes people uncomfortable" just doesn't seem likely, there's plenty of topics that make people uncomfortable and yet get talked about.
I just feel like I walked into having a child fully aware that labor was painful — that I definitely was warned about, that everyone talked about birth plans etc, I said I'm an overplanner and I mean it, I was researching hypnobirthing and tens machines and all that stuff before I even went off BC — and yet somehow there was this giant, humongous, gaping, blind spot around the immediate and long term health costs of pregnancy that even now years later I just find baffling. I went to pregnancy classes and it didn't come up??? I spoke to doctors before I became pregnant about what I needed to do and know in advance and it was never mentioned?
To this day I still feel like it was treated as if anything short of being actually hospitalized just didn't matter.
(After writing all of this up I think "well maybe it's the sexism stupid" but is that really sufficient an explanation? Like yes I know feminists have been beating the drum about women's health being ignored, dismissed, and neglected and I know it's true, but is that alone enough to explain it?)
I assume your wife has already gone to a physical therapist specializing in women's pelvic floors, but just in case she hasn't I am mentioning it anyway as something she should try. Everyone knows about kegels but physical therapists can help suggest other exercises and help with doing kegels more effectively.
Not saying it will solve the problem entirely but it can lessen the severity/frequency for some women.
Thank you for sharing your perspective!
And yes there is a joy that toddlers bring that doesn't really come from anything else. They're just so much more seriously and wholeheartedly enthusiastic about life than anyone else I've ever met.
Scott mentioned it at some point, I was curious and checked it out, and I've lurked occasionally since. So I've been lurking for a long time I guess? Because I don't remember when he mentioned it.
I don't think it's a weird way to think of it and you've reminded me of another reason I want a fourth. Three kids feels like it invites weird sibling dynamics with both lots of triangulation and more rigid fixation in the roles of "oldest", "middle", "youngest" whereas larger families I know seem to have more fluidity in the roles.
Although I don't think the rivalries go down at all with 3 or 4 or 5. You're still fighting over what share you get of a limited resource (parental attention). Although I don't think it gets noticeably worse even with more fingers grabbing at the same pie... So maybe I'm wrong, and the natural decrease in resources allotted to each child actually does lower the tension as well? Now I'm second-guessing myself.
Yeah it does seem possible the range is the reason.
Your point about geriatric pregnancy is appreciated. It is something I keep in mind, as not "what number do we stop at" but "what age do we stop at". Also because of the increased concern for the child having issues...
The way we handle mealtime is we make one supper. And then if you don't like it you can have cereal or a sandwich.
But I'm lucky to have kids with no significant/difficult to accomodate allergies. My friend has a separate set of food restrictions for each kid, it's impossible for her to make only one meal for the family, 2 meals is already an achievement.
The work I feel would linearly increase with each kid is laundry (an unending task with three, I don't know how we wouldn't fall behind with four) and the pickup/dropoff juggle dance (bad enough with the bare minimum of just school/daycare and gets ridiculous if you want to add extracurriculars). Food and supervising definitely doesn't take much additional effort once you're already making the initial investment.
Oh man the bedroom splitting. So much of our household bedroom furniture arrangement depends on the sex of this not even conceived yet child.
I know about the show in a completely different way than you.
For a brief period Taylor Swift dated a British singer named Matty Healy. Her fans were enraged that she was dating him, because he was a racist who went on The Adam Friedland Show and made a joke about watching violent porn and then a female friend of his walking in on him. One of the hosts suggested that he was watching ghetto gaggers and he agreed that was what he was watching. (This is relevant only because the host later tried to explain that he was the one who suggested the name and Matty didn't actually watch it)
Fans started circulating a petition that Taylor break up with Matty among other insane behavior.
The relationship fell apart very quickly, but Taylor released a double album that included multiple songs about Matty, one of which was a song about how much she hated her fans for clutching their pearls at her dating choices.
Anyway tl;dr: the humorless far left fucking loathes that show so I don't think it could be like Joe Rogan who I don't think is considered an untouchable stain by the far right?
This is an interesting comparison although I instinctively find the comparison to war (evil that is only sometimes a necessary evil) to be repellent. But I suppose pregnancy and labor could also be considered a necessary evil and we have all gotten acclimated to ignoring the evil part.
Whatever you choose, it's not on you to make the world a better place. It's only on you to do what is reasonable. That's all it means, to live a life of choice and value.
I am still chewing on this and still not convinced I agree (but I'm also not certain I'm understanding you correctly).
Are you saying that to live a valuable life you need to only do what is "reasonable" as in the bare minimum of not harming others? Or "reasonable" as in "make the world a better place but you can spend moderate/reasonable costs and don't have to spend severe/unreasonable costs"?
Upon checking you're right that I'm exaggerating the risks.
Meta-analyses revealed that the incidence of postpartum urinary incontinence was 26% [95%CI: (21% ~ 30%)]
So not having it isn't "uncommon", but having it is still common enough I'm definitely lucky.
(The odds during pregnancy are 45/55 so basically a coin toss, but I lost that coin toss so...)
I'd guess the most likely reason you don't hear about it is women are embarrassed to talk about it with you. It's definitely treated as an open secret between women, now that you know about it you may discover yourself catching some jokes on the topic you previously missed. For example if they make an oblique reference to what happens when they sneeze.
youre pretty much describing panic attacks here. If you want to "get over it", try this: Instead of fearing that it will suck, imagine it would for sure be like your last time again. It would for sure suck. A few years later, youre sitting at a large table full of children. Will you be ok?
This is a reasonably good approach, thanks. It doesn't really help my fear of things going much worse, but it definitely makes me feel less anxious about things going the same.
My husband has definitely gotten kicked, and elbowed, and headbutted in the balls more than zero times.
I'm curious how you know this. Did you ask? How many of the men you asked had kids?
I did start hemorrhaging after my second birth but I don't think it actually got to the point of being truly dangerous (it's a little hard to know, the medical professionals try not to make you panic, but they gave me the necessary medication and got it under control pretty quickly so I think it was just a routine complication) and at the time my PPD was severe enough the slim prospect of being dead felt like a relief, I mostly felt bad for my husband. (Spoiler: I did not die)
But I don't think I'd be ok with a 10% risk of dying to have a fourth kid. That seems pretty damn cruel to the first three.
(Of course large portions of human history people seemed to feel otherwise, unless the only reason husbands were still ejaculating inside their wives after the first kids during periods of history when maternal mortality was higher than 10% was because they had religious reasons so strong it was worth risking their wife's life over. Idk, I find it very very hard to relate to the choices made during time periods with high maternal mortality, it seems pretty crazy to me, but maybe it explains why women who feel the risk is worth it exist because we'd have gone extinct otherwise?)
I have a relative who got post partum psychosis, which I consider approximately 1000x more terrifying than PPD, and she's on her way to a fifth child. Discussing having kids with her is a very strange experience because she's so much less ambivalent than me. Like I was listening to her describe her experience and feeling my ovaries shriveling up inside my body from terror and meanwhile she was talking about how much she wanted another kid. I guess the evolutionary drive to reproduce is just that damn strong in some people? Idk.
It's a good point re age and finding a spouse. Definitely having more kids is a lot easier if you start younger. I know women freezing eggs and women single-parenting-by-choice so obviously options do exist but I guess I probably agree that most women would really prefer to have kids
- Via sperm from a better vetted source than a sperm bank
- With the hope of actual support from a partner + the chance to give their child a normal family
And that of course is entirely dependent on factors not entirely in their control
- Prev
- Next
We already have plenty of evidence that no, people are not aware of the difference between reality and fantasy.
My sources here are going to be limited because googling these topics is a distasteful experience.
Choking: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/sep/02/i-think-its-natural-why-has-sexual-choking-become-so-prevalent-among-young-people
Similarly anal:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women
I don't have statistics on an increase in incest irl as a result of incest in porn (and I'm not interested in doing much googling it) but it's enough of a concern that people who work in organizations dedicated to fighting child sexual assault mention is as an additional risk of the legally produces videos, aside from the cover and camouflage those videos provide for the millions of videos of actually illegal rape
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/dec/16/online-incest-porn-is-normalising-child-abuse-say-charities
More options
Context Copy link