This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Your body always is “your body,” right up to the point in involves someone else’s body. Just as your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. This is the first time I’ve come across someone equating pregnancy to slavery, but it’s surely interesting. And this is what I was getting at earlier:
Not saying to belong to the in-group, but the logic sure does seem to get pretty fuzzy whenever the topic is brought up. Words lose their meanings so fast to its advocates, probably because it’s the only way they can square this circle.
Contrary to your last point, the reason either of us are benefiting at all entirely comes from the moral wealth of my side of aisle, I’d argue. The reason someone doesn’t have the right to come along and end my life without retribution comes from the self-worth and dignity of each person. Which is also why I’m against abortion.
But I'm not blue tribe, I'm a libertarian. It should be pretty clear that I value the sanctity of bodily autonomy very highly. So it would follow that I view the removal of that right as pretty catastrophic.
Can you make the actual argument around collective amnesia clear. Because if you are just arguing the teleology of sex then I point you to this comment I just made link. What was said about Christian assumption of a default universalism applies to your comment/argument as far as I can tell.
Technically so does the babies... which is why I can remove their body from mine, after which I have no say in their bodily autonomy. Their rights end where my body begins. Their dependence on my body and their lack of right to my body is morally consistent. If the technology existed to incubate those babies until they were fully formed then I imagine it would be considered correct by my morals to do so. After all who doesn't want to keep existing. However the lack of a technology existing does not suddenly make morals change.
I didn't realize your moral side was now claiming total ownership over any and all children and births across the universe? Isn't that a bit of an arrogant and grandiose claim? My parents were trying intentionally for children. I don't think you can claim me. What about my dignity to not be enslaved? Of if I dress a certain way and walk down a certain street in a bad neighborhood do I lose that dignity?
I said as much.
If it was possible to simply “remove” their body from yours, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Except by your own words: you calculated and risk and took it. Now deal with the consequences.
You forfeit your right to a child’s dependence on you when you accept the risk that getting pregnant is a serious possibility. If you didn’t want to take the risk, you didn’t have to. Just like you own example provides: you get into a car you accept a risk to drive. You drive drunk, you accept the increased risk of an accident.
Then by your own admission, you don’t really deny that you’re terminating a baby’s right to life. After all if it were just a clump of cells (just like you and I are right now) there’d be no moral imperative to preserve what isn’t life.
It certainly does by your logic it seems.
Do you apply this to every other risk? Does taking a known risk automatically creates an unlimited duty to endure every consequence of that risk? No? Then this is special pleading around abortion specifically
Correct, it could be a baby, an adult, a violinist. My right to my body enables me the freedom from arbitrary dominion over it. I have the right to dictate how it is used. If there was a moral imperative to preserve life don't you'd think we'd see more evidence of it through the world and history?
Do I have a choice? Life is full of risks. You minimize the ones you can only manage and eliminate the rest that aren’t acceptable.
This is quite a backpedal from your position earlier and not a very good one either. And I never brought up an “unlimited duty,” to minimize risk. You’re putting words in my mouth. If you don’t want to risk a pregnancy from happening you have two basic options:
It’s pretty straightforward and not more complicated than that.
Likewise, a baby has a right to its body. Accept this risk as a possibility and engage in the act or don’t.
But that's not the question, the question is that if you mitigate the consequences of your actions. If you do then you are just engaging in special pleading around people mitigating the consequences of their actions, specifically around abortion.
I've been very consistent. My stance is unequivocally bodily autonomy + "taking a known risk does not automatically creates an unlimited duty to endure every consequence of that risk".
A risk of sex is pregnancy. Just because I had sex does not mean I have an unlimited duty endure all the risks of sex. If I am afflicted by one of those risks, I am allowed to mitigate or even solve it. I can get treated for STDs, I can get therapy, and I can get an abortion. Common mitigation solutions for risks of sex.
Ok I took a risk, a bad thing happened. I now am going to mitigate the consequences of that risk to the best of my ability. Looks like an abortion maximally mitigates that consequence. I'm getting an abortion. Very straight forward. You are the one who is ignoring this logical flow, because you want to mitigate your consequences but control how other people are allowed to mitigate theirs, which is hypocritical.
Cool, it can enjoy that right outside of my body.
I accept the risk, and then choose to mitigate the consequences as EVERYONE is allowed to do.
You pretty much want to force me to accept this risk. To you having sex -> pregnancy, and if I get pregnancy, "that sucks but you need to endure it". I, in your view, am required to endure 100% of the risks for actions I take with no allowed mitigations. However, you don't apply that across the board, to every action. Just this one. Hence special pleading around abortion.
Question or not, it’s the reality of the matter, regardless. What you’re failing to come to grips with is that it isn’t a debate whether or not you have to liberty to have an abortion, the question is whether or not it’s moral for you to do so.
Which isn’t the debate. You and I aren’t having the same conversation. The framing of the other side has everything to do with the notion that your right to enjoy sex doesn’t allow you to murder an innocent human being.
To you all you’re doing is “getting an abortion.” To others you’re committing murder. This is where the division is between us and it keeps going unaddressed by you.
That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that people who view abortion as immoral are absolutely trying to ban it. That makes this as much a debate about the liberty to have an abortion AND whether or not its moral to do so. Maybe don't try to legislate your morality into law if you don't want to have to fight others trying to keep their liberty.
Apparently because you are unwilling to actually address any ideas around it. You pretty much refuse to accept even a neutral frame around this. It's your moral framework is the only moral framework.
I'm going to tap the sign again. Christianity is NOT the universal moral framework. Define innocent, and Define why children are innocent, and then why don't you define why a clump of cells is considered human. Why isn't a sperm cell human or an egg? You just assume your worldview is the default and its not.
And if I fail to recognize this as murder? What evidence do you have that I am murdering another human being? Murder has meaning, as does human being. I've been very charitable granting you the basic frame to define human, and you've taken that charity and repaid none of it back, and taken it a fucking mile instead. So I retract that charity, prove all these terms you've so carelessly thrown around actually mean what you believe they mean.
When abortion advocates go into legislating the murder of unborn children, don’t turn around and tell those you oppose you “you can’t legislate morality.” If you don’t think people should walk about the streets with a sense of vigilante justice about them and decide to act on their liberty to murder other people for transgressions real or imagined, be consistent both ways.
Not once have I seen from you an argument that a fetus isn’t a human being in any way wouldn’t be difficult for you. I said as much earlier and received no direct response to it.
Now you’ve got the correct frame of the discussion. What I’m asking you is to do is define all these terms in a way that circumscribes only a fetus; and doesn’t leave the door open to ending the lives of massive amounts human beings after the fact. I can define all these terms in ways that are consistent because my moral framework isn’t only accurate (naturally, as I’d argue), it’s universal, which is something you balk at. Well good luck trying to eat your cake and have it too if you think you can abandon a principle that applies evenly and with equal force in all directions and situationally justify this in relativistic terms that are without analogical moral contradictions.
Then per the Socratic method, you’re being irrational. There’s nothing that prevents someone from being a dumb ass either. If you object in basis of sound reasoning, you can at least be correct or morally consistent. Absent reason, you’re being irrational.
In Catholicism innocence is defined as the state of being unburdened by deliberate malice or evil. Children are innocent because they lack the rational maturity and understanding to commit mortal sin. The reason this “clump of cells,” (which also captures you and I incidentally) is a human is because it possesses a unique genetic blueprint that is distinct from both parents and is placed on a developmental trajectory towards a fully actualized human being.
Now give me your morally coherent framework for how “none of this,” supposedly counts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link