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 -
I don't hide mine at all. Indeed i have got into multiple very long debates about my belief set here! Its true I tend to be a high decoupler and I do like to poke at peoples logic.
In this specific case I think surrogacy can be pragmatically complex but is morally acceptable, given the logic I laid out before. A surrogate of a donated egg and sperm is not the mother in a biological sense. And even if she were parents do unilaterally have the right to give up their children and have others raise them as in adoption.
The child would not exist but for the surrogacy arrangement. The choice is not this child staying with the "mother" vs going to another family. The choice is the non-existence of the child entirely vs going to the family.
It is true the child does not get a say, but they don't get a say in adoption or their parents giving them to grandparents to be raised, or being moved to a new country, or being circumcised or hundreds of other common things. Including whether to exist in the first place. Condemning surrogacy on that basis is condemning parenting children at all.
The surrogate is perceived as the mother by the child, who will bond with her in the womb, and it will cause the child distress to be separated from her.
This is why surrogacy is so Omelas/Torment Nexus-coded to so many: it's intentionally causing a child distress to satisfy the desires of adults, in a way that is not beneficial to the child. I agree that it's like adoption, in the sense that I also think it's cruel to give your child up for adoption for financial or other consideration, or really any reason besides it being a better outcome for the child (which is rare!)
Now, to be fair, there is some research showing that this does not cause long-term problems - I am a bit skeptical of this, and suspect that over time we will discover that surrogacy tends on average to create attachment issues in children.
The child would not exist otherwise, so as long as we consider their life to be net positive, even if that is true it is still more beneficial to be be born.
I think probably on balance it's probably better to spend 18 years playing videogames before dying painlessly to a heroin overdose than it is to never be born but I still don't think we should do this, even if it did result in a steady supply of fresh organ donors, thereby saving many lives.
To be clear, I am not trying to say you would suggest that we do this. My goal is not to put words in your mouth. I think you would oppose such an initiative. I am suggesting that this line of reasoning is not actually the limiting principle you think it is.
All men must die as they say. Lines of reasoning do not need to be strictly followed when the outcome is poor, just as all lines of reasoning do not need to be followed when the outcome is good. I am comfortable enough that I don't think surrogacy is going to lead to killing people at 18 for organs.
That the argument works for this purpose is good enough.
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