Friendly Reminder: Social issues affect MEN too.

[deleted] · 2012-08-25T10:17:15+00:00

It seems there has most of the talk this campaign has been about social issues, from perennial favorites abortion and gay marriage, to newer things like the...

[–][deleted] 58 points59 points60 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]JockeVXO -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I'd just like to preface this with that I too am not American, I am pro-abortion, pro-contraception and whatnot and do not agree with Romney on many things. However, in what way would women face injustice if abortion was criminalised and contraception¹ wasn't covered by insurance?

Men don't have reproductive rights, to equalise things in that area we either give men reproductive rights or we revoke women's reproductive privileges. Personally, I'd prefer giving men rights over taking privileges from women, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. There is sexist injustice going on right now in the area of reproductive rights and it's against men.

¹ I am not sure about this, but the only "male" contraception is condoms, is that covered by insurance? If not, then I see no injustice in female contraception not being covered. If it is, then it is discriminatory.

[+]Grapeban 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

However, in what way would women face injustice if abortion was criminalised and contraception1 wasn't covered by insurance?

It's about providing women with agency and control over their lives.

It's particularly applicable in developing countries with very poor women's rights, where provision of contraception and abortion can be crucial to women gaining independence.

Without these things, women don't have control over their lives, and lose independence. Women cannot choose whether or not they get pregnant and cannot choose whether or not to abort the pregnancy.

This means women are forced into being mothers (since societies that have little contraception and criminalise abortion usually have strict gender roles regarding parenthood), they cannot participate in society in the same way as the men.

Yes, men can be forced into paying child support or can lose access to their child in some situations, but that is not quite the same as having your independence taken away and your destiny put in another's hands.

[–]EvilPundit 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JockeVXO 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

It's particularly applicable in developing countries

So, Romney is going to be a candidate for president of the developing world?

women gaining independence.

I don't follow, independence? From what? And if you call dependence on others (the tax-paying population) independence you and I have different views on what independence is.

Yes, men can be forced into paying child support or can lose access to their child in some situations, but that is not quite the same as having your independence taken away and your destiny put in another's hands.

Yes, it is. Men are forced into fatherhood, are forced to pay the ones with all the rights (privileges) regarding the decisions made without having any rights to the offspring.

As it stands right now, women have all the possibility on the owrld to decide whether or not they become pregnant, and if that should happen whether or not they carry the foetus to term, men do not. we can equalise this in two ways:

Men get the same right to choose. Men are brought up to women's level.
Women are denied the right (privilege) to choose. Women are brought down men's level.

[+]Grapeban 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JockeVXO 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Um, I was just explaining why women were oppressed when they lost access to abortion and contraception. None of your response really deals with that.

Were? It hasn't happened yet, and even if Romney wins it most likely won't. If women would be oppressed by not having reproductive privileges, aren't men?

Also, oppressed? I was talking about facing injustice and you didn't mention oppression in your first reply... Would women face injustice by not having the same reproductive privileges they are afforded today? Only if you are willing to concede men face injustice today by not having reproductive rights.

Same right to choose? What do you mean, are you saying men should be able to have input on a woman's choice to have an abortion?

No, but you already knew that. Legal Paternal Surrender: Men get the right to legally control their own life, they can decide whether or not they become fathers. You know, like women can.

[+]Grapeban 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Were? It hasn't happened yet, and even if Romney wins it most likely won't.

Apologies, I was talking in hypotheticals and slipped up with my tenses.

No, but you already knew that. Legal Paternal Surrender: Men get the right to legally control their own life, they can decide whether or not they become fathers. You know, like women can.

I didn't already know that, people on here advocate different ideas for fathers, and for some that includes saying fathers should have input on abortions.

Anyway. When a woman has a child, she is expected by society to give up her career and life in order to care for that child. This is evidenced by many things, two examples, the court bias in favour of mother in custody disputes, and the fact that single mothers are much more common than single fathers.

This is even more so the case in more patriarchal societies, such as the developing countries I originally mentioned (you may be talking specifically about America, but I'm trying to show why a lack of access to abortion and contraception oppresses women in general. Certain areas of the developing world exemplify this).

A father isn't expected to surrender his career and his life in order to care for his child. He is expected to provide money for his child, but that does not require a radical shift in how life is being lived, it's basically the equivalent of an extra tax.

No, it isn't right in all situations that men must pay child support, but it is not as oppressive as women being unable to prevent or abort a child that will lead to them having to restructure their entire life.

[–]JockeVXO -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]Grapeban 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

As far as I'm aware Romney's American, but what do I know?

I'm not talking about Romney. Well, not exclusively Romney.

You cannot say that women would be oppressed if men aren't in that situation.

Abortion and contraception control 101.

Whenever these issues come up, and people try to restrict abortion and contraception, there's a lot of poorly analysed stuff about cultural and religious reasons thrown about.

The real reason these things are pushed for, is because the groups seeking them are pushing for patriarchal control. It's not a coincidence that the groups in favour of abortion and contraception control are groups in favour of strict traditional gender roles and patriarchy in general.

Just look at less liberal Arab nations, the Catholic Church or, yes, the Republican party.

Why does restricting abortion and contraception oppress women? It removes their choice over 1) their bodies and 2) their lives. Let's look at those in turn.

1) Pregnancy occurs within a woman's body, and can have serious consequences for that woman both before and after the birth. Before, it can cause serious (very, very serious in some cases) illness and there can be fatal complications. After birth there are often mental health issues and physical issues, tied to both things like potential complications and hormones and stuff (I'm not a doctor, hence "and stuff").

This... doesn't happen to cis men (yeah, that's a point, in this whole thing I'm talking only about cis people, sorry trans siblings!). It just doesn't. This isn't an insignificant argument, a huge part of the pro-choice campaign is "my body, my choice". This is a debate that focuses around bodily and medical autonomy.

So that's the first reason why contraception and abortion rights aren't directly comparable to legal parental surrender. On to two.

2) Impact on lives. For this, you need to look at gender roles within society, particularly within those societies that support patriarchal control/groups that vie for it that I mentioned earlier.

We have a very clear social dynamic in place within those groups. Men lead the family and earn the money. Women care for the house, the husband and the children. When a woman has a child, suddenly her social responsibilities kick in, her "higher calling" so to speak. She is expected by society to drop everything and care for her child, it's father and their house. Women must abandon their careers and lives in order to fulfil this role.

Yes, men must also meet societal obligations when this occurs, they have the responsibility to lead and provide for their household. But I'm going to explain why, in terms of societal power, this isn't oppression in the same way as the obligations on women are.

If men are still earning, they can still work their way up through society, they can still become leaders, they can still get things done. They can rise to positions of power and rule society (and yes, I know this is what you'd call an "apex fallacy", I don't care, it's true and relevant) and shape society to their whims. The women can't do this, they are stuck in the house, they cannot rise up and take command as equals. The person at the head of the household, the person in charge, is always in a state of superiority to the person caring for the house.

I mean, think about it, the wife is totally, totally dependant on the husband, if the money stops coming in, she's screwed, she's earning no money for herself, her house, her child or her husband.

When women can't rise to the top of society and are instead confined to roles within the house, huge problems are created. In no particular order.

1) Later generations of girls learn that the house is "their place" and do not strive to break those rules and reach the top of the social ladder.

2) Girls are pushed away from education, since they don't need it, they'll be working in the house. Money making, and therefore education, becomes the man's domain.

3) The status quo becomes dominated by men, who have no incentive to upset the delicate social balance for something that would not actually help them.

Note that in these societies I'm talking about, men don't have Legal Parental Surrender either, but they aren't "oppressed" like women are because of this.

Right, okay, now a caveat

No, removing abortion and contraception rights will not cause all these problems instantly, I'm not saying that. However, you cannot consider this situation within a vacuum. Yes, maybe in a society where there were no restrictions or expectations for either gender, no gender roles, abortion and contraception rights might be comparable to legal parental surrender. Maybe, there's still that argument about bodily autonomy up top.

So, women wouldn't face any injustice if their right to abortion was revoked.

In conclusion, you have conveniently forgotten the fact that pregnancy is a thing that happens, babies don't just appear without touching a woman's body, as well as forgetting about wider societal context and the effect that this revocation would cause when considering that context.

[–]JockeVXO -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Whenever these issues come up, and people try to restrict abortion and contraception, there's a lot of poorly analysed stuff about cultural and religious reasons thrown about.

~~This statement will surely be followed by a flawless and evidenced cultural and religious analysis.~~ Followed by a poor analysis based not in research or even proof but dogma and projections.

The real reason these things are pushed for, is because the groups seeking them are pushing for patriarchal control. It's not a coincidence that the groups in favour of abortion and contraception control are groups in favour of strict traditional gender roles and patriarchy in general.

That's a really bold claim you've got there, because one could easily be fooled to believe it had a little something to do with the fact that the people who seek to outlaw abortion and contraception believe that a foetus is a human life and as such has a right to live, and that "every sperm is sacred". Your claim is also evidenced by... nothing.

This... doesn't happen to cis men

You seem to ignore the effect pregnancy has on men, which includes both physical and mental health changes.

They can rise to positions of power and rule society (and yes, I know this is what you'd call an "apex fallacy", I don't care, it's true and relevant) and shape society to their whims.

Yes, that is a clear case of an Apex fallacy, men are also the ones who are expected to go down mines or toil 'til they drop in societies where there's no abortion and contraception. And you forget the power mothers have over societies where they are the ones who primarily care for the children, the hand that rocks the cradle.

I mean, think about it, the wife is totally, totally dependant on the husband, if the money stops coming in, she's screwed, she's earning no money for herself, her house, her child or her husband.

Only if you choose to ignore dowries and other bridal money, which oh you did... And that she can work. So, it seems you didn't really think about it.

Later generations of girls learn that the house is "their place" and do not strive to break those rules and reach the top of the social ladder.

Boys learn that they're disposable beasts of burden and die pre-maturely due to their workload.

The status quo becomes dominated by men, who have no incentive to upset the delicate social balance for something that would not actually help them.

Once again, the hand that rocks the cradle, and why wouldn't men have an incentive to upset the balance that affords them less protection than their female counterparts and leads to shorter lives? Comments like these sicken me.

Note that in these societies I'm talking about, men don't have Legal Parental Surrender either, but they aren't "oppressed" like women are because of this.

To my knowledge there aren't any countries where LPS is legal.

However, you cannot consider this situation within a vacuum. Yes, maybe in a society where there were no restrictions or expectations for either gender, no gender roles, abortion and contraception rights might be comparable to legal parental surrender. Maybe, there's still that argument about bodily autonomy up top.

First off, I can consider it in a vacuum, women have legal privileges that are not given to men, men need them so hand them over.

Second, you cannot pick and choose which conditions form the context. You assume that money just exists for the men who have to provide for unwanted offspring, when they in fact work for it. That fathers don't have any rights to their children even if they were wanted is another factor you have conveniently left out. As for bodily autonomy, men don't have it, so women not having it is not an injustice.

In conclusion, you have conveniently forgotten the fact that pregnancy is a thing that happens, babies don't just appear without touching a woman's body, as well as forgetting about wider societal context and the effect that this revocation would cause when considering that context.

You have ignored that money is provided through labour, and that forcing someone to provide labour without them having a right to their earnings is slavery, and that the threat or action of imprisoning people who cannot or refuse to give away their property to somethign they have no rights to is an act of violence and theft.

[–]Grapeban1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's a really bold claim you've got there, because one could easily be fooled to believe it had a little something to do with the fact that the people who seek to outlaw abortion and contraception believe that a foetus is a human life and as such has a right to live, and that "every sperm is sacred". Your claim is also evidenced by... nothing.

My claim that the Republican Party, the Catholic Church and, I don't know, Saudi Arabia are patriarchal groups/nations? Sorry, I didn't realise you required evidence for those things, I considered them self-explanatory.

Why is it that groups against abortion and contraception just so happen to also be in favour of strict gender roles? What do those things have to do with the sanctity of life?

You seem to ignore the effect pregnancy has on men, which includes both physical and mental health changes.

Cis men don't get pregnant. If a cis guy gets a cis girl pregnant, but doesn't know it and leaves her and goes off to do his own thing, he faces no physical or mental health changes.

Yes, that is a clear case of an Apex fallacy, men are also the ones who are expected to go down mines or toil 'til they drop in societies where there's no abortion and contraception.

Whereas the women don't have to toil themselves till they drop? Uh, yeah actually, yeah they do, often they are the ones doing phenomenal amounts of work to keep the house functioning, from participating in farm labour to trekking to get water.

And you forget the power mothers have over societies where they are the ones who primarily care for the children, the hand that rocks the cradle.

Yes, clearly mothers were the most powerful group in 1800s Britain (where, guess what, women were expected to work in mines!). It wasn't men, it was mothers.

Only if you choose to ignore dowries and other bridal money, which oh you did

Unless you get divorced literally right after the marriage, dowries probably won't be tremendously helpful.

And that she can work. So, it seems you didn't really think about it.

Except in these nations I'm talking about, women often can't work. Women aren't educated and generally can't even leave their husband in the first place.

Even if they have those things, working and raising children is actually really damn hard. Very, very hard, and usually necessitates neglecting either the career or the children.

Boys learn that they're disposable beasts of burden and die pre-maturely due to their workload.

Boys learn that women are there to serve them and that they are the superior force in society.

why wouldn't men have an incentive to upset the balance that affords them less protection than their female counterparts and leads to shorter lives?

Because the men have a social order that works. The men work, the women care for the home, and keeping that order stable keeps the society stable. Plus, often because they themselves aren't experiencing injustice, they don't give a shit about injustice.

To my knowledge there aren't any countries where LPS is legal.

And to my knowledge, there aren't any countries which are matriarchies.

First off, I can consider it in a vacuum, women have legal privileges that are not given to men, men need them so hand them over.

Yes, because history and culture and society doesn't exist and should not affect how we view reality or morality.

You assume that money just exists for the men who have to provide for unwanted offspring, when they in fact work for it.

...I know that? Uh, when did I say men didn't work for their money? I mean, apart from corrupt people who didn't, but yeah, most have.

That fathers don't have any rights to their children even if they were wanted is another factor you have conveniently left out.

Firstly, fun fact I just learned, they do in China! According to the BBC

in 2002 a new Chinese law put a man's right to have a child on an equal footing with the right of his wife, and a man has sued his wife for infringing that right by having an abortion

Secondly, yes he does! Here are the laws for Scotland regarding parental responsibility and fathers.

From May 2006 a child's mother and father are both given parental responsibility if they register the child's birth together. That means both of their names appear on the child's birth certificate.

For children born in Scotland before May 2006, if the child's mother and father were married to each other (or got married later), then both parents were given parental responsibility. If a child's mother and father were not married, then only the mother was given parental responsibility. A father can still get parental rights and responsibilities if he wants them:

by marrying the mother

if the mother agrees, by filling in a form called a Parental Responsibilities and Parental Rights Agreement (PRPRA)

by asking the court to give them to him

Yes, it automatically gives mothers the rights, which is crap and based in our traditional gender roles, but look, fathers can gain rights if they want them!

As for bodily autonomy, men don't have it, so women not having it is not an injustice.

sigh how do men not have bodily autonomy then?

You have ignored that money is provided through labour, and that forcing someone to provide labour without them having a right to their earnings is slavery, and that the threat or action of imprisoning people who cannot or refuse to give away their property to somethign they have no rights to is an act of violence and theft.

Y'know, this argument could be literally copy-pasted into an argument against taxes. Do you not like taxes either?

[–]JockeVXO0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The real reason these things are pushed for, is because the groups seeking them are pushing for patriarchal control.

You still haven't proven your absurd and ridiculous claim.

Whereas the women don't have to toil themselves till they drop? Uh, yeah actually, yeah they do, often they are the ones doing phenomenal amounts of work to keep the house functioning, from participating in farm labour to trekking to get water

Oh, I guess that's why men die younger...

Yes, clearly mothers were the most powerful group in 1800s Britain (where, guess what, women were expected to work in mines!). It wasn't men, it was mothers.

You are deliberately misconstruing what is being said; women held power, and so did men. But the kind of power you are referring to was held by individual men and women at the top of society, not a group of people.

Unless you get divorced literally right after the marriage, dowries probably won't be tremendously helpful.

Married women are granted dowry or dower (I should think the Mahr is a dower) and alimony or maintenance in most cultures. During marriage the husband must provide for his family, her money and property is not to be used for this purpose. After divorce, he is to maintain her and give her the dowry depending on the reason for divorce. Otherwise, the dowry or dower is hers for her time as a widow.

Except in these nations I'm talking about, women often can't work. Women aren't educated and generally can't even leave their husband in the first place.

What does education have to do with ability to work (especially in developing countries)? Most work performed in poor countries is manual labour and don't even require you can read. And what does access to divorce have to do with it?

Boys learn that women are there to serve them and that they are the superior force in society.

Another bold unsubstantiated claim that reeks of misandry.

Because the men have a social order that works. The men work, the women care for the home, and keeping that order stable keeps the society stable. Plus, often because they themselves aren't experiencing injustice, they don't give a shit about injustice.

And the women don't have a social order that works? The men work and provide for them while they care for the home. Men don't experience injustice? Another bold unsubstantiated claim that reeks of misandry.

Yes, because history and culture and society doesn't exist and should not affect how we view reality or morality.

Fine, then I guess you don't have a problem with anyone saying women shouldn't have the national/federal vote since women have never been subject to conscription? And therefore should only be able to vote in regional/local elections? Because that historical, cultural and societal context is necessary at all times when discussing suffrage. Or you could decontextualise it and say, women should be able to vote in all elections because men can.

...I know that? Uh, when did I say men didn't work for their money? I mean, apart from corrupt people who didn't, but yeah, most have.

Then why did you leave it out? It's an important factor for understanding the context. I am not sure who these corrupt people are... Politicians?

in 2002 a new Chinese law put a man's right to have a child on an equal footing with the right of his wife, and a man has sued his wife for infringing that right by having an abortion

Quite awful, who won?

Yes, it automatically gives mothers the rights, which is crap and based in our traditional gender roles, but look, fathers can gain rights if they want them!

Only if he agrees to marry her or if she agrees to give it to him. That's quite some power she has and he lacks.

sigh how do men not have bodily autonomy then?

Really? Genital mutilation? Conscription?

Y'know, this argument could be literally copy-pasted into an argument against taxes. Do you not like taxes either?

I will answer your question first, and then I will explain why this argument actually couldn't "be literally copy-pasted into an argument against taxes".

First, the answer: I am not very keen on taxes, but I see them as being necessary for society to be able to function, I am however for a lower flat taxes with decreased government spending and reach.

Now, why your claim is not quite correct: I pay taxes (mostly) for services that I have a right to. You pay CS for "services" you don't have any rights to. So, they are not comparable. Of course, all tax money don't go into services I have a right to as a man, e.g. rape and DV services mostly exclude me and certain forms of government assistance, but most of it is open to me such as healthcare.

[–]Grapeban1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You still haven't proven your absurd and ridiculous claim.

What proof do I need? Just look outside, is the Republican party a group based in traditional, conservative values? Are they not a party in favour of gender roles, from which stems their dislike of LGBTQ people?

Oh, I guess that's why men die younger...

The reason for that is generally attributed to men visiting the doctor less, men being more likely to have an unhealthy lifestyle (drinking, fatty foods etc.) and biological reasons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8566594/Why-do-men-die-younger-than-women.html#

You are deliberately misconstruing what is being said; women held power, and so did men. But the kind of power you are referring to was held by individual men and women at the top of society, not a group of people.

In 1800s Britain, the men held power and the women were subservient. That is how it worked, this is how it is accepted to have worked by most historians. Yes, most men did not reach the top of the power pyramid, but the crucial fact here is that their gender was not the reason for not reaching up there. For women, their gender was the reason.

During marriage the husband must provide for his family, her money and property is not to be used for this purpose. After divorce, he is to maintain her and give her the dowry depending on the reason for divorce. Otherwise, the dowry or dower is hers for her time as a widow.

And why was the husband expected to provide? Because he was in charge, he had responsibility for his wife and family like a sergeant has responsibility for his soldiers, like a CEO has responsibility for his employees, like an owner has responsibility for his damn dog.

What does education have to do with ability to work (especially in developing countries)? Most work performed in poor countries is manual labour and don't even require you can read. And what does access to divorce have to do with it?

Education has a lot to do with rising out of cycles of poverty and into positions of power within society. No education = no social mobility basically.

As for access to divorce, in many countries women literally can't get away from their husbands unless the husband chooses to do so. The husband is in control, the wife is subservient, that is the narrative that runs through all of this.

Another bold unsubstantiated claim that reeks of misandry.

If every powerful person was your gender, do you not learn that your gender is where powerful people come from? If the narrative of your culture is one of misogyny, do you not become misogynistic?

And the women don't have a social order that works? The men work and provide for them while they care for the home. Men don't experience injustice? Another bold unsubstantiated claim that reeks of misandry.

Yes, the men face injustice, but not because they are deemed lesser because of their gender. That is the fundamental difference here.

Quite awful, who won?

It didn't say. Based on the law, presumably the man.

Then why did you leave it out? It's an important factor for understanding the context. I am not sure who these corrupt people are... Politicians?

I dunno, just corrupt people in general, it was just a caveat to explain that not everyone earned their money. Doesn't really need to be considered.

Only if he agrees to marry her or if she agrees to give it to him. That's quite some power she has and he lacks.

Or if he asks a court, how selective your reading is.

Really? Genital mutilation? Conscription?

Fairish points, I forget about them since one is a lesser issue and the other a non-issue in the UK.

First, the answer: I am not very keen on taxes, but I see them as being necessary for society to be able to function, I am however for a lower flat taxes with decreased government spending and reach.

We disagree wildly about taxes it seems.

I pay taxes (mostly) for services that I have a right to.

I pay taxes for all sorts of things I don't have a right to, disability benefits, poverty benefits, council housing, when I leave education I shall still be paying for that. [Edit: At least I would, if I was old enough to pay tax]

[–]JockeVXO0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What proof do I need? Just look outside, is the Republican party a group based in traditional, conservative values? Are they not a party in favour of gender roles, from which stems their dislike of LGBTQ people?

Wow, you just keep repeating the same rubbish over and over. Prove your initial claim, then you can move on to proving this claim if you like.

The reason for that is generally attributed to men visiting the doctor less, men being more likely to have an unhealthy lifestyle (drinking, fatty foods etc.) and biological reasons.

Generally, but not exclusively or entirely, work-related injuries, illnesses or stress factors in.

In 1800s Britain, the men held power and the women were subservient. That is how it worked, this is how it is accepted to have worked by most historians. Yes, most men did not reach the top of the power pyramid, but the crucial fact here is that their gender was not the reason for not reaching up there. For women, their gender was the reason.

So, you're saying that women held no power?

And why was the husband expected to provide? Because he was in charge, he had responsibility for his wife and family like a sergeant has responsibility for his soldiers, like a CEO has responsibility for his employees, like an owner has responsibility for his damn dog.

Not what was being discussed at all... But, let's look at it anyway, was the husband in charge because he had responsibilities or did he have responsibilities because he was in charge?

Education has a lot to do with rising out of cycles of poverty and into positions of power within society. No education = no social mobility basically.

Once again, not what was being discussed. Most people aren't educated in developing countries, yet men seem to be able to provide for their families just fine performing manual labour. Are you saying women shouldn't have to do blue collar work, only white collar?

As for access to divorce, in many countries women literally can't get away from their husbands unless the husband chooses to do so. The husband is in control, the wife is subservient, that is the narrative that runs through all of this.

So I ask you once more, what does this have to do with work?

If every powerful person was your gender, do you not learn that your gender is where powerful people come from? If the narrative of your culture is one of misogyny, do you not become misogynistic?

Pretty dogmatic, and meaningless...

Yes, the men face injustice, but not because they are deemed lesser because of their gender. That is the fundamental difference here.

So, now you've changed your mind? From men not facing injustice and therefore not caring about others to facing injustice but as "higher beings"? Well, I guess it's a step in the right direction.

It didn't say. Based on the law, presumably the man.

Not necessarily, if it put the man's right to a child on "equal footing with the right of his wife", the law doesn't say he necessarily wins.

Or if he asks a court, how selective your reading is.

Ah, I misread that last line to be a continuation of the second last line... So, how does it work in practice? Does a man just go to court and say I want legal rights to this child and they give it to him?

Fairish points, I forget about them since one is a lesser issue and the other a non-issue in the UK.

Very fair points, I'd say. And now you're only talking Britain, not the developing world?

We disagree wildly about taxes it seems.

So it would seem. Ideally I'd want an anarchy but it'd take time to develop safely to one, so in the meantime I am going for individual liberties and personal responsibility.

I pay taxes for all sorts of things I don't have a right to, disability benefits, poverty benefits, council housing, when I leave education I shall still be paying for that. [Edit: At least I would, if I was old enough to pay tax]

But, you'd have a right to all that if you were to become disabled or poor, etc...

[–]Grapeban1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, you're saying that women held no power?

Aside from anomalies like Queen Victoria (royal blood trumped gender, royal blood trumped everything)? Yeah.

But, let's look at it anyway, was the husband in charge because he had responsibilities or did he have responsibilities because he was in charge?

He was expected to be in charge and so had the expected responsibilities. It's not a chicken and egg game, they both came packaged with each other.

Most people aren't educated in developing countries, yet men seem to be able to provide for their families just fine performing manual labour. Are you saying women shouldn't have to do blue collar work, only white collar?

No. I'm simply saying that education is needed to escape cycles of poverty and that in developing countries are much less likely to have that education. This is all about how women are tied to their husbands because they depend on their husband for financial support.

So I ask you once more, what does this have to do with work?

It's about women being tied to their husbands economically. The divorce problem shows that in many cases, women are tied to their husband no matter what, economic viability of divorce being irrelevant.

So, now you've changed your mind? From men not facing injustice and therefore not caring about others to facing injustice but as "higher beings"?

No? What I've said is not mutually exclusive.

Not necessarily, if it put the man's right to a child on "equal footing with the right of his wife", the law doesn't say he necessarily wins.

I suppose, I haven't looked into the issue.

So, how does it work in practice? Does a man just go to court and say I want legal rights to this child and they give it to him?

I looked it up, and actually you just need your name on the birth certificate if you're an unmarried couple. So you just have to go to court and prove you have a right to be on the certificate (presumably by some kind of biological link).

And now you're only talking Britain, not the developing world?

Nah, I just sort of forgot they existed. Sloppy of me, yes, but I'm tired.

But, you'd have a right to all that if you were to become disabled or poor, etc...

Yeah, but I also pay for health services I would never need (say, services for autistic children), I pay for the army, I pay back the debt and most of my money will go towards education that I shortly will have no use for [Again, when I actually start paying tax]

[–]JockeVXO0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Aside from anomalies like Queen Victoria (royal blood trumped gender, royal blood trumped everything)? Yeah.

Legal impunity for her criminal actions with all culpability falling on her husband is power. Courts and laws biased in her favour means power. How about employers? Did they not have power over their employees?

He was expected to be in charge and so had the expected responsibilities. It's not a chicken and egg game, they both came packaged with each other.

How do you know? Maybe someone just decided that he is to be incharge and have these responsibilities or maybe human societies evolved into this with one coming before the other.

No. I'm simply saying that education is needed to escape cycles of poverty and that in developing countries are much less likely to have that education. This is all about how women are tied to their husbands because they depend on their husband for financial support.

Not entirely true that education is needed to escape cycles of poverty, but I'll leave that. More to the point, we were not discussing cycles of poverty or the need for an education, we were discussing ability to work.

It's about women being tied to their husbands economically. The divorce problem shows that in many cases, women are tied to their husband no matter what, economic viability of divorce being irrelevant.

Still nothing to do with work.

I looked it up, and actually you just need your name on the birth certificate if you're an unmarried couple. So you just have to go to court and prove you have a right to be on the certificate (presumably by some kind of biological link).

And will this provide custody rights? Or visitation rights? Or are Scottish fathers stuck in the same situation that fathers elsewhere are?

Yeah, but I also pay for health services I would never need (say, services for autistic children), I pay for the army, I pay back the debt and most of my money will go towards education that I shortly will have no use for [Again, when I actually start paying tax]

Is it entirely implausible that you one day might become the parent of an autistic child? The army (I believe you mean the military) ostensibly is to everyone's gain in the country, for protection of citizens, you'll pay taxes for that for the same reason you'll pay taxes for the police. The debt being the national debt? Well, that will have to be paid back or else the country will go bankrupt and you won't be able to use any services provided by the state. Your money going to education? I don't understand, most of your tax money will go towards education or most of your privately owned money? Either way, you are free to take up higher education granted that your grades are sufficient for the courses you wish to take and what you do with your own money should be no-one else's business.

[–]Grapeban1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is it entirely implausible that you one day might become the parent of an autistic child?

Very nearly totally implausible, I'm aromantic and asexual and plan to take medication that will render me sterile, medication I will be taking ASAP so there's is little chance I will impregnate someone in the meantime. That whole aromantic/asexual thing also means that it's incredibly unlikely I would get into a situation where I would adopt a child. Plus, my existing mental health conditions make the prospect of adoption more complex, presumably this is even more so the case when adopting children requiring higher maintenance, such as autistic children.

The army (I believe you mean the military) ostensibly is to everyone's gain in the country, for protection of citizens, you'll pay taxes for that for the same reason you'll pay taxes for the police

Ostensibly is the key here. I get no benefit from the war in Afghanistan.

Your money going to education? I don't understand, most of your tax money will go towards education or most of your privately owned money?

Most of my tax money. What I'm saying is, once I'm out of higher education, I'll have no need for education, my money will be going towards services I would never again need.

Legal impunity for her criminal actions with all culpability falling on her husband is power.

The husband ruled the family, his rule was law and a wife was considered a bad wife if she disobeyed. The one with power in the family was the husband.

Courts and laws biased in her favour means power.

Find me proof of this happening in 1800s London, and make sure that the reason for the bias (if it exists) isn't, "Oh, women aren't dangerous, women are weak/delicate flowers/etc."

How about employers? Did they not have power over their employees?

Yes, yes they did. Didn't I mention employers and employees as an example of a power dynamic and how the employer also has responsibility for the employees welfare?

How do you know? Maybe someone just decided that he is to be incharge and have these responsibilities or maybe human societies evolved into this with one coming before the other.

If anything came first, it would be the "being in power". It would make no sense if someone had all the responsibilities afforded to those in power but none of the actual power, that would be totally illogical.

More to the point, we were not discussing cycles of poverty or the need for an education, we were discussing ability to work.

We're discussing ability to provide for the family in case of the family splitting up. We're discussing the wife's dependence on the husband.

And will this provide custody rights? Or visitation rights? Or are Scottish fathers stuck in the same situation that fathers elsewhere are?

These are the privileges/responsibilities afforded.

providing a home for the child

protecting and maintaining the child

disciplining the child

choosing and providing for the child's education

determining the religion of the child

agreeing to the child's medical treatment

naming the child and agreeing to any change of the child's name

accompanying the child outside the UK and agreeing to the child's emigration, should the issue arise

being responsible for the child's property

appointing a guardian for the child, if necessary

allowing confidential information about the child to be disclosed

No, it does not automatically ensure custody or visitation rights, for practical reasons. For example, the mother has parental responsibility, but courts may wish to prevent her from having custody of the child or even visiting it despite this.

[–]JockeVXO0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ostensibly is the key here. I get no benefit from the war in Afghanistan.

Which is why I wrote it. The war is an illegal war of terror, not on terror. It was also the reason I compared the military to the police. The police are an instrument of violence that has been legalised by the state. [includes graphic imagery of the police murdering men and animals]

Most of my tax money. What I'm saying is, once I'm out of higher education, I'll have no need for education, my money will be going towards services I would never again need.

You can decide where your tax money goes? The idea is that you pay back into a system you have benefitted from, and that you can choose to take up studying again.

The husband ruled the family, his rule was law and a wife was considered a bad wife if she disobeyed. The one with power in the family was the husband.

No, his rule was not law. The law was the law, she was not allowed to break the law just because her husband said so. He was however held liable for the crime, thanks to coverture.

Find me proof of this happening in 1800s London, and make sure that the reason for the bias (if it exists) isn't, "Oh, women aren't dangerous, women are weak/delicate flowers/etc."

Not sure why 1800s London is so important but I reckon London had quite a few cases of, for instance, the Tender-years doctrine during that century.

Yes, yes they did. Didn't I mention employers and employees as an example of a power dynamic and how the employer also has responsibility for the employees welfare?

Mhm, so female employers held power, but women held no power?

If anything came first, it would be the "being in power". It would make no sense if someone had all the responsibilities afforded to those in power but none of the actual power, that would be totally illogical.

Not any more illogical than bestowing anyone with "being in power" without responsibilities.

Or how about having some of the responsibilities, as developed from evolutionary sex roles, and then more responsibilities were added as society progressed?

We're discussing ability to provide for the family in case of the family splitting up. We're discussing the wife's dependence on the husband.

Well, family splitting up was not part of the initial argument, but "totally dependant on the husband, if the money stops coming in, she's screwed, she's earning no money for herself, her house, her child or her husband". This doesn't mention divorce, as it shouldn't as the husband was obliged to provide for her after divorce as well. She would also not have to earn any money for her child since the child would have been with the father prior to feminist activism. So, she was not in a position where she had to earn any money for herself, her husband (?) or her children. If he did not maintain her, he went to gaol (jail).

No, it does not automatically ensure custody or visitation rights, for practical reasons. For example, the mother has parental responsibility, but courts may wish to prevent her from having custody of the child or even visiting it despite this.

Then I don't see how that law was relevant. What is needed for men is reproductive rights for men who don't consent to fatherhood, and custody/visitation rights to men who did consent to fatherhood.

Edit: Added a warning for the video.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBananaKing 53 points54 points55 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angelicnargles 29 points30 points31 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocketman0739 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cacher371 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mattlohkamp 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]spiral_in_the_sky 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago* (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]waffebunny3 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

The problem is not one of morality, but pragmatism - specifically, the sorts of issues that can occur when a society attempts to restrict a previously available freedom.

One could draw a parallel with prohibition - the American citizenry were not convinced, en masse, to dispense of their drinking habit; instead, they simply sought alternative and illicit means by which to acquire their liquor. Similarly, the Australian post-Port Arthur gun clampdown - it could be argued that the state has succeeded only in disarming the law-abiding populace.

If Romney were to restrict in part or in whole American's access to abortion services except in instances of rape, it would no doubt result in an enormous drop in legally-performed abortions; however, it would not necessarily remove the desire for such things. Consequently, it seems quite appropriate to prognosticate a matching rise in instances of fictitious rape, reported for the sole purpose of accessing abortion.

Having said this: the entire matter is essentially a thought exercise, as Romney - no matter how vocal he and Ryan are in regard to the matter - almost certainly have no real interest in following through on what is an awfully transparent attempt to vitalize their voting block and nothing more.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]waffebunny2 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]waffebunny2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]753861429-951843627 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

The best argument for abortion I've read so far, the so called 'deprivation argument', is very well outlined in the article "Why Abortion is Immoral" by Don Marquis.

He begins by theorizing about what makes killing wrong in general...

The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. (...) Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong.

...and then uses it as a basis to infer a conclusion about the permissibility of abortion:

The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences for the ethics of abortion. The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to fetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie seriously morally wrong.

You can read the entire article here.

[–]kazagistar 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is the usual reductio ad absurdum which is used against the deprivation argument.

The counter argument in the article is that in the case of contraception there is no definite subject who can be said to be deprived of a future.

Candidates for a subject of harm by contraception fall into four categories: (1) some sperm or other, (2) some ovum or other, (3) a sperm and an ovum separately, and (4) a sperm and an ovum together. Assigning the harm to some sperm is utterly arbitrary, for no reason can be given for making a sperm the subject of harm rather than an ovum. Assigning the harm to some ovum is utterly arbitrary, for no reason can be given for making an ovum the subject of harm rather than a sperm. One might attempt to avoid these problems by insisting that contraception deprives both the sperm and the ovum separately of a valuable future like ours. On this alternative, too many futures are lost. Contraception was supposed to be wrong, because it deprived us of one future of value, not two. One might attempt to avoid this problem by holding that contraception deprives the combination of sperm and ovum of a valuable future like ours. But here the definite article misleads. At the time of contraception, there are hundreds of millions of sperm, one (released) ovum and millions of possible combinations of all of these. There is no actual combination at all. Is the subject of the loss to be a merely possible combination? Which one? This alternative does not yield an actual subject of harm either. Accordingly, the immorality of contraception is not entailed by the loss of a future-like-ours argument simply because there is no nonarbitrarily identifiable subject of the loss in the case of contraception.

I find this counter-argument unconvincing. Just because we lack the ability to comprehend the complete causal chain of events that will eventually lead to one subject, doesn't mean that there isn't a specific future subject.

I would rather argue that it may simply be impossible to act morally in regards to this problem. There is an immeasurable number of potential people who could exist and each of our actions might ultimately lead to the deprivation of the future of one of these people.

Since 'ought' implies 'can', we are not responsible for this deprivation in a morally relevant sense.

[–]753861429-951843627 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I don't have the time now to read it, but I'll read it as soon as possible. Thanks for the article.

From what you quoted, there is a bit of an ought-is-problem here, and I wonder how he establishes that depriving one of a future is morally wrong (but that is a general problem and I wouldn't level that criticism against the article), and further there is some assumption here that the future of any person has positive value. Further, there seems to me to be a difference between actively killing and depriving a person of necessary support. This would essentially be the violinist argument from "A Defense of Abortion", where the problem of killing is circumvented by pointing out that even if there is an obligation to not actively deprive someone of their life (or possible future experience), there is no such experience to provide it for them either. In any case, this seems to be a utilitarian argument. Would that roughly be correct?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Further, there seems to me to be a difference between actively killing and depriving a person of necessary support. This would essentially be the violinist argument from "A Defense of Abortion", where the problem of killing is circumvented by pointing out that even if there is an obligation to not actively deprive someone of their life (or possible future experience), there is no such ~~experience~~ [obligation] to provide it for them either. In any case, this seems to be a utilitarian argument. Would that roughly be correct?

I would disagree with that argument not only in regards to abortion but in general. To me, there is no morally significant difference between actively killing and "merely" depriving a person of necessary support.

If you are interested in my reasons for adopting this position, then there is another essay I would recommend to you: Active and Passive Euthanasia by James Rachels.

The gist of the argument is illustrated in a thought experiment:

Let's imagine two cases that are exactly alike except that one involves killing whereas the other involves letting someone die.

In the first, Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. One evening while the child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident.

In the second, Jones also stands to gain if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. Like Smith. Jones sneaks in planning to drown the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water. Jones is delighted; he stands by, ready to push the child's head back under if it is necessary, but it is not necessary. With only a little thrashing about, the child drowns all by himself, "accidentally," as Jones watches and does nothing.

Now Smith killed the child, whereas Jones "merely" let the child die. That is the only difference between them. Did either man behave better, from a moral point of view? If the difference between killing and letting die were in itself a morally important matter, one should say that Jones's behavior was less reprehensible than Smith's. But does one really want to say that? I think not. Both men acted from the same motive, personal gain, and both had exactly the same end in view when they acted.

[–]tremorfan 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

But the setup itself is strongly biased. Jones had already morally committed himself to committing the same act as Smith, i.e., murdering the child.

With the exception of the difference between killing and letting die, the two cases are exactly the same, including the motive. That is the exact opposite of bias. Otherwise, it could be argued that Smith is worse than Jones for other reasons. We aren't interested in other reasons when we want to find out whether or not there is a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die.

In any case, the strongest counter-point to this way of seeing the world is that, if it were true, we would all be morally responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Black Plague combined.

'Ought' implies 'can'. We are not responsible for something we couldn't do anything about. But if it is in my power to prevent somebody from dying, then I ought to do it (unless I would have to sacrifice something of comparable moral importance).

I'm assuming that you're referring to the lives we could save with foreign aid but aren't because we rather use that money for buying a flat screen TV. In that case, people are acting immorally. "We need, however, to have a moral code which is not too far beyond the capacities of the ordinary man, for otherwise there will be a general breakdown of compliance with the moral code", as Peter Singer rightly notes in his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality". We can not expect people to voluntarily live in poverty to save as many other humans as possible. It would be the right thing to do, but humans aren't perfect moral agents.

I flatly reject that allowing millions of people to die from lack of food, water, and medicine is morally equivalent to putting them in concentration camps and gassing them.

The scenarios you mention are not morally equivalent because there are other morally relevant features which must be taken into consideration. The difference between killing and letting die, however, is not one of these relevant features. The act of killing, in and of itself, is morally equivalent to the act of letting somebody die. Whether or not you "flatly reject" it is irrelevant for the matter.

Here is another essay from Rachels about the same topic. In it, he mentions an additional argument for the equivalence of letting die and killing:

Another argument appeals to the parity of reasons. Whether something is good or bad depends entirely on the reasons that can be given for or against it; therefore, if we have identical reasons for or against two things, they are equally good or bad. With this in mind, suppose we ask why it is bad to kill someone. The basic reason is that the victim loses his or her life: he will not be able to do the things he wanted to do or experience the things he wanted to experience. Secondary reasons may have to do with the effects of his death on others. But it is also bad to let someone die, and if we ask why, we find the very same reasons: the person ends up dead, with the same effects for both him and his survivors. Thus it appears that killing and letting die are equally bad.

He also discusses a lot of counter-arguments, so it's probably worth reading the entire essay.

[–]753861429-951843627 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I would disagree with that argument not only in regards to abortion but in general. To me, there is no morally significant difference between actively killing and "merely" depriving a person of necessary support.

Sorry for the late reply, I somehow missed your post. Also, I will use the terms "moral subject" and "moral object" somewhat strangely in the following, the former meaning a subject capable of moral choice, and the latter meaning something of moral relevance. A person can be a moral object, but so could in principle be a value system, f.e., although I won't argue for that being the case.

Further, I will call the model I proposed the "act-model", or subsequently AM, just to be more concise. It isn't an official thing as far as I'm aware and more of a thought experiment.

Finally:

The difference would be that one is an act. If one believes that morality can only be attached to acts, or more specifically some action intentionally performed free of non-necessary contingencies - this to avoid problems with free-will or the lack thereof - which is a direct or necessary cause of an affect upon moral objects, then there is a difference. I'm not sure that this is an entirely useful distinction, but I think that attaching morality to non-acts is possibly problematic from an epistemological viewpoint, and from a pragmatic one, because it requires that we attach moral significance to statuses as opposed to transformations of status, so that someone can be, neither intentionally nor by any act, be in a state of immorality. It's also absolutist to a degree; this isn't particularly relevant for our specific case, but under AM, homosexuality isn't amoral, because it isn't an act that affects a moral object. Homosexual sex still could be immoral, but this would have to be predicated on the act having a negative effect on some moral object, which isn't necessarily the case.

To get back to the point, the question with regards to AM would be whether "depriving" is an action. In the case of abortion, it would be, because this deprivation is a necessary result of an action taken, in your bath tub example, it wouldn't be.

I agree that this sort of thinking is counter-intuitive, but it has the advantage of requiring only one moral subject to make moral choices, from which actions originate. I'll try to clarify this after the bath tub example, which I will paraphrase thusly (correct me if you think this isn't a fair representation, I'm striving for a bit less length, I'm long-winded enough on my own):

Imagine a situation in which a person (A) can derive personal gain from a misfortune befalling another (B). Further, imagine that A either were to directly cause the misfortune of B; or that B were to experience misfortune in a preventable fashion independent of any act by A, and A were to not intervene whilst being able to. In the first scenario, A had caused B's misfortune, whereas A "let B's misfortune happen" in the second scenario. Did either behave differently? One would want to say no, because both the motivation for the act or the lack of an act, respectively, as well as the result, are the same.

I deliberately left out the part about A being ready to intervene to the detriment of B if necessary in scenario two, because I don't think it is relevant here, and I similarly extended this beyond death, which I think doesn't weaken the argument, but makes it more general.

What I meant with moral actions requiring less subjects under AM is that for scenario two to have any moral significance means to attach a "moral duty" to A, the protection of B's interest. For this, we need to attach moral value to a status, such as "being alive" in the original scenario, so we end up with a system of morality in which we have to consider two people, A and B, and an independent absolute (by virtue of being independent of A or B) moral framework. In AM, we in principle only need A and a function that tells us if A's action negatively affected a moral object. We could curry B into this function, but realistically we end up with a system that is only concerned with A, and B, it isn't an independent variable anymore.

An additional problem is introduced with the personal gain A derives from B's misfortune in our scenario, which the article you linked briefly mentions also. Without this personal gain, I think the scenario were clear with regards to AM, namely that scenario one is morally relevant, whilst two isn't. Note here that this doesn't say anything about the moral value of the scenario. In the case of euthanasia, letting a patient die would be morally irrelevant, while actively killing a patient could still be morally valuable (i.e. "good"), because it could be argued that the effect of the action on the killed is positive. The article is in this way an inversion of the topic that originated this discussion.

AM isn't entirely satisfying. Most people, me included, have a vague sense of "moral duty". I solve this issue by means of morally irrelevant choice, that is, I want to prevent people from dying where I feasibly can, because I personally place value in conscious life, and I think it entirely baffling that the world simply goes on when a consciousness ceases to be. To be a bit melodramatic: for a brief moment, the sun should dim, and the world should feel heavy with despair, because it has lost so much potential for thought and experience, but then the sun would constantly flicker, or if the effect were cumulative, go out, and that wouldn't be very desirable either.

Anyway, I currently think that this is not initially a moral choice, and only the effect of an action I choose to take makes it moral or immoral.

Obvious caveats:

What about intent? If I were to decide to try to help some person, and because of my inept attempt at helping, that person were to suffer a misfortune, would I have committed a moral wrong?
AM presupposes that there is no morality independent of moral objects. Is this true? Kant would disagree (and so would many others, but Kant is well known).
Is it satisfying to circumnavigate the problem of personal gained outlined in the scenario in the paper simply by stating that one of the scenarios is morally irrelevant?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Most of your argumentation is based on the premise that in one case (killing) there is an act, while in the other (letting die) there isn't. I disagree with this premise.

When we allow something to happen, we do perform at least one act, namely the act of allowing it to happen. The problem is that the distinction between action and inaction is relative to the specification of what is or isn't done.

I guess we first have to ask ourselves what real difference is marked by the words "causing" and "allowing". I pretty much agree with Jonathan Bennett who argues in his book The Act Itself that the distinction consists in nothing more than this: We cause X if, from among all the ways we might move, there are a relatively small number of ways that would result in X's happening. We allow X to happen, when there are a relatively large number of ways of moving that result in X's happening.

In regards to Rachel's thought experiment this means that there are a vast number of ways Smith could move his body and the child would remain alive, while there are only a relatively small number of ways he might move (pushing the kid's head underwater) that would result in the child's death. Thus, if Smith chooses to move in one of the few deadly ways, we say that he causes death. In Jone's situation, however, circumstances are such that most of the ways he could move would result in the child's death, while there are only a few ways he could move that would result in the child's continuing to live (pulling it out of the water). If Jones moves in one of the many deadly ways, we say that he allowed the child to die. If this is truly the only difference, then it obviously has no moral importance.

What I meant with moral actions requiring less subjects under AM is that for scenario two to have any moral significance means to attach a "moral duty" to A, the protection of B's interest. For this, we need to attach moral value to a status, such as "being alive" in the original scenario, so we end up with a system of morality in which we have to consider two people, A and B, and an independent absolute (by virtue of being independent of A or B) moral framework.

This confuses me. Why would we need an independent absolute moral framework? I could say that from my vantage point, X is wrong, regardless if X refers to "letting die" or "killing". I happen to be a moral objectivist so I have no problem with an absolute moral framework. I would just argue that it isn't necessary in this case.

In AM, we in principle only need A and a function that tells us if A's action negatively affected a moral object. We could curry B into this function, but realistically we end up with a system that is only concerned with A, and B, it isn't an independent variable anymore.

Sorry but I can't follow. Could you maybe give an example to illustrate what you mean?

In the case of euthanasia, letting a patient die would be morally irrelevant, while actively killing a patient could still be morally valuable (i.e. "good"), because it could be argued that the effect of the action on the killed is positive.

If you conclude that killing could be good (because it shortens the suffering), then wouldn't this imply that merely letting die would be wrong (because it prolongs the suffering)?

I solve this issue by means of morally irrelevant choice, that is, I want to prevent people from dying where I feasibly can, because I personally place value in conscious life, and I think it entirely baffling that the world simply goes on when a consciousness ceases to be.

If you call this a "morally irrelevant choice", then why would killing not be a morally irrelevant choice as well? Somebody could say that he, personally, doesn't place value in conscious life and thus sees no problem in killing it. I guess we would have to flesh out what we mean by morality in order to settle this issue. I'm happy to do so if you want to extend this discussion.

for a brief moment, the sun should dim, and the world should feel heavy with despair, because it has lost so much potential for thought and experience, but then the sun would constantly flicker, or if the effect were cumulative, go out, and that wouldn't be very desirable either.

Very well said. Kudos!

Anyway, I currently think that this is not initially a moral choice, and only the effect of an action I choose to take makes it moral or immoral.

I have no problem with consequentialism. It's just that I would call the choice to allow somebody to die an act as well, but I already explained that.

What about intent? If I were to decide to try to help some person, and because of my inept attempt at helping, that person were to suffer a misfortune, would I have committed a moral wrong?

We have to differentiate between judging actions and judging people.

AM presupposes that there is no morality independent of moral objects. Is this true? Kant would disagree (and so would many others, but Kant is well known).

I suck when it comes to Kant but I think that he would be wrong to disagree. Even the rules in deontological ethics depend on their usual effects on others. If that were not the case, then the rules would just be arbitrary and it would be hard to explain why we should adhere to them at all.

Edit: Spelling and changed a few words.

[–]753861429-951843627 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I need to say that in reality, the moral framework I work with is a clusterfuck of ad-hoc or post-hoc rationalisations of my actions and what caused them. This is more of a thought experiment to me, and I'm not a philosopher. I read books on philosophy, and my work and academic studies indirectly touch upon philosophy by virtue of various logics and calculuses. You seem to be well-versed in philosophy, as far as I can tell, and this whole discussion might be a huge waste of your time.

Most of your argumentation is based on the premise that in one case (killing) there is an act, while in the other (letting die) there isn't. I disagree with this premise.

That's a bit surprising, but not unexpected. I also think that much hinges on this.

When we allow something to happen, we do perform at least one act, namely the act of allowing it to happen. The problem is that the distinction between action and inaction is relative to the specification of what is or isn't done.

I'm not entirely sure what this means, because I'd argue that there is no act if nothing is done.

I guess we first have to ask ourselves what real difference is marked by the words "causing" and "allowing". I pretty much agree with Jonathan Bennett who argues in his book The Act Itself that the distinction consists in nothing more than this: We cause X if, from among all the ways we might move, there are a relatively small number of ways that would result in X's happening. We allow X to happen, when there are a relatively large number of ways of moving that result in X's happening.

That's cause, which in AM would be contingent on an act, not used to define it, and only in a moral context. If a flood were to destroy a house, that flood had caused the houses destructions, but isn't morally relevant. In AM, an act is the ultimate requirement for a moral choice even being relevant. I'll accept this definition of an act for the sake of the discussion.

In regards to Rachel's thought experiment this means that there are a vast number of ways Smith could move his body and the child would remain alive, while there are only a relatively small number of ways he might move (pushing the kid's head underwater) that would result in the child's death. Thus, if Smith chooses to move in one of the few deadly ways, we say that he causes death. In Jone's situation, however, circumstances are such that most of the ways he could move would result in the child's death, while there are only a few ways he could move that would result in the child's continuing to live (pulling it out of the water). If Jones moves in one of the many deadly ways, we say that he allowed the child to die. If this is truly the only difference, then it obviously has no moral importance.

This is predicated on the child already being in a state of mortal peril, isn't it? With the first scenario from before, where the child doesn't slip and drown on its own, this doesn't appear to be as clear cut, but okay:

Under these definitions as I understand them, "allowing the child to die" would be an act that necessarily causes its death, and hence would be morally relevant, and since death is presumably to the child's detriment, that would be morally "bad".

[ Independent absolute framework ]

This confuses me. Why would we need an independent absolute moral framework? I could say that from my vantage point, X is wrong, regardless if X refers to "letting die" or "killing". I happen to be a moral objectivist so I have no problem with an absolute moral framework. I would just argue that it isn't necessary in this case.

Because under AM there is no moral duty. With the peculiar definition of act from above, there is also no moral duty, because the morality of not acting to save somebodies live lies in the fact that one could, and that not doing so is at the very least an act of allowance, but that hides moral duty by building it into the criterium that defines an act.

Moral duty usually is a duty onto others. Its result is that acts become mandatory, because someone can not remain moral without fulfilling that moral duty. However, the chain of causality in such a system starts with some possible effect on B, which triggers moral duty, which mandates an act on the part of A. There is an external cause that is already morally charged that precedes the act of A (and ignoring this cause would then make not acting immoral). This moral duty must be external to A; it's not grounded in the subject of the act, it causes the subject to act, and it isn't relative because it can't be grounded in the moral object (which would otherwise be a moral subject and the interaction would be reciprocative(word?)). It's absolute because if it weren't, i.e. the interpretion of moral duty were up to the subject (A), A could simply not recognise preventing the effect on B as a moral duty, which would ground the ultimate cause of the moral act in A again.

Under AM, this is not the case. There can be no moral duty, because morality arises from an act, it isn't the cause of it. This means that we don't need an external absolute framework. Instead, by acting in a particular way, A has a positive or negative effect on B, and this is either moral or immoral.

[...]

In the case of euthanasia, letting a patient die would be morally irrelevant, while actively killing a patient could still be morally valuable (i.e. "good"), because it could be argued that the effect of the action on the killed is positive.

If you conclude that killing could be good (because it shortens the suffering), then wouldn't this imply that merely letting die would be wrong (because it prolongs the suffering)?

Under the definition of acting you provided, yes, under mine, no, because reality is amoral. Perhaps I should have said this earlier. It's a very broad statement, and I haven't entirely thought it through just now, but I think it boils down to this. Under AM, the state of the world is amoral. It is our actions and how they transform the state of the world that introduces morality. Somebody suffering is no moral concern to someone operating with AM.

I solve this issue by means of morally irrelevant choice, that is, I want to prevent people from dying where I feasibly can, because I personally place value in conscious life, and I think it entirely baffling that the world simply goes on when a consciousness ceases to be.

If you call this a "morally irrelevant choice", then why would killing not be a morally irrelevant choice as well? Somebody could say that he, personally, doesn't place value in conscious life and thus sees no problem in killing it. I guess we would have to flesh out what we mean by morality in order to settle this issue. I'm happy to do so if you want to extend this discussion.

I think I know what you mean; I partially agree, we need to accept an axiom that it is immoral for A to act in a way which is detrimental to B, and we need some metric to measure "detrimental" and "advantageous". However, killing can not be morally irrelevant because the moral relevance of an act is predicated on it having an effect on a moral object. Naive AM just tells us whether an action is a moral concern, or irrelevant, and not if an action is moral. Sam Harris suggested "well-being" as a criterium, and "science" as the metric, and his book was rightly widely criticised; however, he argued that we actually don't have an epistemological problem, because morality is implicitly concerned with well-being. Any morality that tries to find objective moral principles independent of moral subjects and objects actually fails from the outset, because it is still concerned with objective morals as they pertain to moral subjects and objects, and not, say, a stone. I think I might have confused "absolutist" and "objective" morality above. I'm unfortunately very busy currently (or rather, I am supposed to..), so I can't spend an hour to think about this in detail. I hope you can accept this and pick the more charitable interpretation.

In any case, I tried to pack this idea into the definition of act, and moral actions: By restricting moral actions to acts that have an effect on a moral object, the epistemological problem is reduced to defining what is detrimental and what is advantageous. We don't have to establish where morality comes from anymore, because it is emergent, if you will. AM is intrinsically only concerned with the effects on acts on moral objects, and doesn't need an external justification. That's a very weak point, I know.

[melodrama]

Anyway, I currently think that this is not initially a moral choice, and only the effect of an action I choose to take makes it moral or immoral. I have no problem with consequentialism. It's just that I would call the choice to allow somebody to die an act as well but I already explained that.

Yes. I still disagree with that definition, but under that definition I believe the same conclusion would be reached under non-naive AM and the outlined framework.

What about intent? If I were to decide to try to help some person, and because of my inept attempt at helping, that person were to suffer a misfortune, would I have committed a moral wrong?

We have to differentiate between judging actions and judging people.

Yes, and that is a problem, because under AM those two are the same as it stands now.

I suck when it comes to Kant but I would say that he would be wrong to disagree. Even the rules in deontological ethics depend on their usual effects on others. If that were not the case, the rules would just be random and it would be hard to explain why we should adhere to them at all.

Hm. This would mesh with the idea of restricting epistemological problems I outlined, wouldn't it?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]753861429-951843627 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]toptrool 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]polkapiggy 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]toptrool 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]toptrool 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

point out to me where there's a right to life in the either the united states constitution (or statutes), or a state constitution or statutes. you can't deprive someone of a right they do not have.

The right to life (and other inalienable rights) are defined in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is there to protect those rights.

Amendment XIV Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

how many times have you heard leftists say "the government should provide healthcare/education/welfare for all because it's the right thing to do"?

Never. But I have heard them say that we should do the above because it makes the country better for everyone. That's not morality.

or how about "prostitution is bad so we should outlaw it"?

Obviously a position that our government shouldn't hold and a great example of why morals shouldn't be legislated. It is infinitely worse for the prostitutes and the johns for this to be illegal.

Again, protecting the livelihood of everyone doesn't have anything to do with morality, but with protecting their ability to pursue their life.

okay? i have no problem with that analogy, because all you're doing is pointing out that there are stages and development of life.

And that one does not equal another.

[–]toptrool -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]toptrool -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]toptrool0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you're obviously ignorant of the science, so let me refer you to some sources so you can educate yourself on the matters.

what are the differences between an ovum (haploid) and a fertilized ovum?:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9901/

how do biologists define a human being?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-individual/

http://eol.org/pages/327955/details

what more experts have to say on fertilization - the start of a new human being's development:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html

what did jérôme lejeune, who was considered to be the father of modern genetics, have to say about fertilization? just read his testimony from court:

http://www.sedin.org/propeng/embryos.htm

what happens during the early stages of human development?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

here are some visual references to help you understand better:

http://youtu.be/fKyljukBE70

http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-conception

and here's a more in-depth look into embryology:

http://www.embryology.ch/genericpages/moduleembryoen.html

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]toptrool1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]toptrool1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notheanix 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

we don't have laws against murder because it's immoral, we have them because it denies someone their rights.

Terms like "rights" are a way of framing a moral stance.

Troll. Showing you clearly have no idea of the laws that govern the United States.

Can you clarify that statement, but with less angst? If people have a right to life, why is there no universal healthcare and why is the death penalty accepted in most states? Can you point to a law that says we have a right to life?

Does a new butterfly come in to existence when two butterflies mate? No. A caterpillar does. A caterpillar is to a butterfly what a zygote is to a human.

While I agree with you, good luck winning that argument (even if you were well reasoned and persuasive). Oh and a zygote is to a butterfly what a zygote is to a human.

[–]electriophile 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]notheanix 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]notheanix 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NemosHero 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NemosHero -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Because they aren't the same thing.

As far as I know, human rights only make sense in a moral framework. So why should I care about rights when we disregard the moral framework?

Just to be clear, I use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition of morality, according to which morality refers to "guides to behavior that involve, at least in part, avoiding and preventing harm to some others."

It's quite easy to establish that everyone has the right to pursue a life of their choosing. If someone takes their life, then they are denying the victim the ability to pursue a life of his choosing.

So what?

Fundamental rights.

Again: What are these rights based on if not morality? Rights are ethical principles so it makes no sense to speak of them as if they are detached from morality.

How did you get from A to B? This is illogical.

You said "A fetus is not a human being and therefore has no rights." Animals aren't human beings either and thus shouldn't have any rights either (according to you). One could hold that it is morally wrong to be cruel to them regardless whether or not they have rights. But since you don't think that laws should be based on morality and only on rights (whatever you think rights are), there can not be any laws against animal cruelty according to your own logic.

[–]VoodooIdol -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

As far as I know, human rights only make sense in a moral framework. So why should I care about rights when we disregard the moral framework?

Because it's the law.

So what?

... Troll response. Not giving it credence.

What are these rights based on if not morality?

The ability for each person to pursue their life. That's what it's based on. Each person is deemed to have the right to... live their life.

Again: What are these rights based on if not morality? Rights are ethical principles so it makes no sense to speak of them as if they are detached from morality.

Example of the difference between ethics and morality:

When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime.

Animals aren't human beings either and thus shouldn't have any rights either (according to you).

You miss the point entirely. Dogs have rights. Horses have rights. (animal rights) Horse zygotes do not have rights. Dog zygotes do not have rights.

People have rights. People zygotes do not have rights.

Is this becoming a little more clear to you?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Because it's the law.

I thought we were talking about what should be the law. It's obvious that not all laws are inherently good so I still don't see why I should care.

... Troll response. Not giving it credence.

I honestly didn't see your point.

The ability for each person to pursue their life. That's what it's based on. Each person is deemed to have the right to... live their life.

Why? Is that just an arbitrary thing people came up with once and now we are stuck with it?

When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime.

Where did you get that from? "Ethics" is conventionally just a synonym for "moral philosophy".

You miss the point entirely. Dogs have rights. Horses have rights. (animal rights) Horse zygotes do not have rights. Dog zygotes do not have rights.

You said "A fetus is not a human being and therefore has no rights."

Apparently you changed your mind now. So since 'being a human' isn't the prerequisite for having rights after all, what is it?

Is this becoming a little more clear to you?

It's just becoming clear to me that you never really thought about what rights are. You use "right" like a buzzword.

[–]VoodooIdol -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's obvious that not all laws are inherently good so I still don't see why I should care.

You're free to not care. You're also free to pay the consequences should you act on your lack of caring.

Why?

Are you fucking 3 years old? Really?

Where did you get that from? "Ethics" is conventionally just a synonym for "moral philosophy".

The difference is in the paragraph above. If you don't get it then I can't help you.

Apparently you changed your mind now. So since 'being a human' isn't the prerequisite for having rights after all, what is it?

In the instance of human procreation, being a human being is the prerequisite for having rights.

What about this is so difficult for you to understand? Do you not understand comparisons?

It's just becoming clear to me that you never really thought about what rights are.

It's becoming clear to me that you have absolutely zero ability to reason. I'm surprised you make enough money to have an internet connection.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're free to not care. You're also free to pay the consequences should you act on your lack of caring.

Might makes right?

Are you fucking 3 years old? Really?

Your failure to pursue this discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to ignore the issue instead of resolving it. The answer to my question is obvious: Because people think that it is right (in a normative sense). You simply can't spell that out because then you would have to admit that rights and laws are based on morality after all.

The difference is in the paragraph above. If you don't get it then I can't help you.

I know for a fact that, conventionally, "ethics" is a synonym for "moral philosophy". I don't see any reason why I should care about your paragraph, especially when you don't even bother to provide a source or context.

I should have known better than attempting to argue with somebody who constantly has to resort to petty insults. Maybe I will consider what else you have to say when you have learned to debate like an adult. Now go sit in your time out corner and think about the childish manner in which you have behaved. You may come out and play with the grown ups when you have realized your mistake.

[–]VoodooIdol -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]polkapiggy 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]betaprime 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]realberbersilver 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]betaprime 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]calonord 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ClickclickClever 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]buylocal745 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClickclickClever 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

I get what you're saying but you should also remember that sometimes people misidentify as "feminists". They don't actually believe in the hateful sexist, bigoted dogma that is at the core of "feminism" but don't really know what else to call themselves and most likely haven't done enough research to even know how terrible feminism is for society. A lot of it comes from how "feminism' is seen as the right thing to do and a good thing to be, and again most people don't research enough to know how much bullshit is actually thrown about in it. Now I'm not saying these people are misidentifying, just that it happens.

Edit: Sorry if it seems like I was defending any of these guys. I was just trying to point out to keep an open mind about people who identify as "feminists". Yes indeed most of these people are assholes and liars.

[–]Kantor48 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kazagistar 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueyb 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Obama:

His admin sent the infamous "Dear Colleague" letter stripping any remnant of due process from college sexual assault allegations, allowing young men to be stripped of all scholarships and expelled from campus on any he said-she said allegation with 0 supporting evidence.

Obama authored healthcare that sufficiently addresses women's health, but completely ignores men's health care.

And as mentioned elsewhere, Obama has pushed using Title IX to try to even out enrollment in male-dominated fields of study, but completely ignore the female-dominated ones, a move that can literally only widen the existing 60-40 gap in college enrollment.

Obama, and notably, his vice president, have defended keeping the VAWA bill gender discriminatory and have rebuked all efforts to make it fair and equal to male victims.

I think Romney's an ass. I truly don't like him or what the GOP is pushing these days. But no GOP president is going to have the power to do ANYTHING about abortion, no matter how much they hate it. In areas a president can have an effect, Obama is as "anti-male feminist" as a politician could hope to be.

[–]mpioegzz 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]kazagistar 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kazagistar 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]gprime -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoodMorningRedditt 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]buylocal745 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]buylocal745 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I guess we just put different weight on what is important. I have no problem if someone wants to live their life being a racist/bigot/etc. I don't feel like I am an a morally superior position that would enable me to use force against them to change how they live or use force to suppress their point of view. As long as they are not using force or fraud against others I have no cause to act against them - that is what the philosophy boils down to.

You see that many put a high degree of weight on homosexual marriage. Now to me, it is ludicrous for me to cast a vote that would help a candidate that pledges to make it so a couple thousand could get married. More important to me is stopping the death (over a million now) that we have seen in the ever expanding wars this decade. Neither the left or right seem to want to stop the war so I am left with no choice but to go with a libertarian candidate.

[–]VoodooIdol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As long as they are not using force or fraud against others I have no cause to act against them - that is what the philosophy boils down to.

Unfortunately discriminatory laws is using force against people based on racism/sexism/homophobia. That's how two gay men in Texas got arrested in their own home for having homosexual sex and, eventually, got the discriminatory law thrown out. Under Paul there would be no challenge to such a law.

Now to me, it is ludicrous for me to cast a vote that would help a candidate that pledges to make it so a couple thousand could get married.

And herein lies the problem - you and Paul and all your ilk are not concerned in any way with equal treatment under the law. This is why all of the rest of us know (even a large portion of the looney religious right) that the Libertarians and Paultards are actually so extremely right wing that even the Republican Party wants nothing to do with them.

More important to me is stopping the death (over a million now) that we have seen in the ever expanding wars this decade.

So, you would trade our Constitution for stopping a war overseas? Because that is precisely what you are talking about.

Neither the left or right seem to want to stop the war so I am left with no choice but to go with a libertarian candidate.

The left does, but it also realizes that it is political suicide to do so.

[–]duglock -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duglock -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kazagistar 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JockeVXO 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]buylocal745 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JockeVXO 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Luriker 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deloreon -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]deloreon 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]deloreon -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Equating rape accusations to failed homework completion or missed curfews is disgusting, I'm sorry. I have never, ever met someone that frivolous or self absorbed, and I've know a lot of shitheads. I'm not discounting the reality of false rape accusations, but you're acting like they're slung around like nothing. They're not.

The failure there is a lack of basic sex education, accessibility to birth control (although, thanks Obamacare! At least that's somewhat resolved), and stigma surrounding acknowledging the reality of teen sexuality. Besides, as stated before, accusing people of rape in order to access abortion rights realistically, in a Republican dominated government, would get you nowhere. Republicans would set up a system that delayed abortion rights to the point of viability, I guarantee it.

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Equating rape accusations to failed homework completion or missed curfews is disgusting, I'm sorry. I have never, ever met someone that frivolous or self absorbed

Nearly every teenager is super self absorbed. They're also told all their lives that the biggest danger that could happen to them is getting fucked and pedophiled. They're not shown PSAs that explain the serious harm they can do to victims of false accusations.

Rape is a serious charge, but mom and dad finding out what a slut you are is a serious problem to a teenager. They might get grounded form their prom, and if that other boy they like can't see them in that perfect dress they already picked out, he'll never ask her out and that will make their life over.

A rape accusation solves serious problems because it excuses seriously disapproved behaviour, and lets the accuser turn around anger/punishment/disappointment into manipulated support.

For you to be shocked, Shocked! that someone could be born without the appreciation of consequences to others, be immature and self absorbed as teenagers is what is disgusting. You're basically saying that false rape accusations only happen for vengence and rage.

[–]deloreon 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're making huge generalizations about teenage girls. I was a teenager in not the distant past, and absolutely none of the things you're saying ring true to me at all. I had extremely uptight and repressive parents and was far more sexually active than most of my catholic school peers. Would I have loved for them to have known "what a slut I was?" Not particularly - they would have locked me down for the rest of high school, more than likely. Would I have dealt with that because I was a responsible human being (or, at least, quietly gotten around the consequences)? Yes, because that's the normal way teenagers behave. And I'm not an anomaly, as your "nearly every teenager" suggests. Teenage sexuality is far less stigmatize than you're assuming, especially in an era of clandestine sex ed zines circulating in "abstinence only" schools and Slutwalk. The idea that sexually active women and even teens are damaged goods is dying out fast.

I'm not sure what high school you went to or even if you remember and can identify with your past teenage self, but do you honestly think you would have accused someone of rape or a similarly extreme offense just to get out a missed curfew? Did you know anyone at all in your teenage years that did?

I never said it wasn't possible, but to base your vote in the 2012 election because you think that false rape accusations will suddenly plague the U.S. is a complete overestimation. And I'm not saying teenagers are never self absorbed or don't understand the consequences of their actions, but false rape accusations are so much more serious than that. Your argument doesn't speak to any of that; it speaks to how little respect you have for women and teenage girls.

Also, you quoted The Office as your evidence. Really?

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deloreon 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deloreon -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggilicious-5 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaunaLoona18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]frehop11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gprime 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dolemarq 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]realberbersilver 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Friendly Reminder: Social issues affect MEN too.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	236
Comments	163
Date	August 25, 2012 10:17 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ysusg/friendly_reminder_social_issues_affect_men_too/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/friendly-reminder-social-issues-affect-men-too.1015037 https://theredarchive.com/post/1015037