The Abortion and Vaccination Thread

[Lexicus]

Ethics are not obligations.

For ethical principles to be practical, they need to oblige certain courses of action. The "fundamental ethical articulation" is the non-harm and non-manipulation of others. This can be simply restated as "we are ethically obligated not to harm or manipulate others."

This is very basic stuff...I honestly have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by questioning it...

You've yet to establish a clear delineation, perhaps that would be useful. Assuming we're still within legal boundaries, when is sex with consent ethical vs unethical, and how can a person reliably determine this in practice?

I doubt you comprehend the size of the task you're asking me to perform here. At the very least, a person can reliably determine ethical from unethical sex by actually being concerned with their partner's point of view and what their partner is experiencing, feeling, etc.

If the woman has a say in whether sex happens, she is responsible for the act too. If it's unethical, painful, or otherwise problematic, why is she consenting? Why is the sex happening at all in that context?

Right: like I said. This is the tee-up for the victim-blaming: she consented, so what is there to complain about? I know that you think this is a rhetorical question without an answer, but the answer is that we have a culture that accepts female pain as a normal consequence of male pleasure. The birth control asymmetry brought up earlier reflects this: the side effects for women to go on birth control are crazy, all just so that men can get more pleasure out of sex. There is a widespread view that women experiencing pain during sex is just normal, to be expected, not something to complain about. And on an individual level many women do not want to bring up these issues for fear their partner will get angry or even violent, or just leave.

That is of course beyond the baseline that society just does't take women's pain as seriously as it takes men's pain, e.g.:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/emergency-room-wait-times-sexism/410515/

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For ethical principles to be practical, they need to oblige certain courses of action. The "fundamental ethical articulation" is the non-harm and non-manipulation of others. This can be simply restated as "we are ethically obligated not to harm or manipulate others."

This is very basic stuff...I honestly have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by questioning it...

Your argument seems to want to manipulate what choices people make, however. Is that not unethical by your own definition of ethics? You are essentially stating that people should hold themselves to a standard different from what they prefer. This requires at least some demonstration of undue harm/asymmetric responsibility in the context of "unethical sex".

But if a woman anticipates it being harmful, why is she engaging in it?

I doubt you comprehend the size of the task you're asking me to perform here. At the very least, a person can reliably determine ethical from unethical sex by actually being concerned with their partner's point of view and what their partner is experiencing, feeling, etc.

That's dodging the question entirely. Virtually everyone is concerned to at least an extent. How much concern is sufficient for it to stop being unethical?

I suspect a substantial percentage of people are just bad at sex. That isn't fundamentally unethical...shouldn't their partner be giving feedback to this effect so they can improve? Presumably if it's happening at all both people want it to at least some degree.

Right: like I said. This is the tee-up for the victim-blaming: she consented, so what is there to complain about?

If someone consented how are they a victim? A victim of bad sex? Saying that's overwhelmingly a male issue sounds naive - I'd expect a normal distribution among both populations.

The birth control asymmetry brought up earlier reflects this: the side effects for women to go on birth control are crazy, all just so that men can get more pleasure out of sex.

Then don't do it?

There is a widespread view that women experiencing pain during sex is just normal, to be expected, not something to complain about.

Other than maybe the first time, that this is a "widespread view" is news to me. 30% is bad, but isn't that also publicly considered bad? I was under the impression that this was considered an issue to be addressed for women experiencing it.

And on an individual level many women do not want to bring up these issues for fear their partner will get angry or even violent, or just leave.

That's not okay. Relationships are a two way street. Perhaps the man could notice, depending on how obvious the situation is. I'm not okay with the concept that someone would just straight up not talk about something this important when in a serious relationship.

If it's not a serious relationship, I'm a lot less interested in this discussion. Casual sex has a number of potential pitfalls, but inconsiderate people can be freely tossed in that scenario anyway.

That is of course beyond the baseline that society just does't take women's pain as seriously as it takes men's pain, e.g.:

That's a pretty rough anecdote, do you have a source that shows this to be the case consistently? There are unfortunately hundreds to thousands of stories like this yearly for both sexes (poor practice at one of several steps --> missed diagnosis/delayed care), so I'd be interested in seeing some rate statistics.

I have personally experienced a > 4 hour delay before having a test done as an in-patient because the transport people put me in the wrong room and then they supposedly couldn't find me (???). If my condition had turned out to be something worse than it was that could have mattered a lot. But that's not evidence of systemically considering men's experience less important. It's evidence of poor transport practices at that facility. Still scares me though.

In medicine there are classes of issues that are considered "urgent" or "don't miss this because the person will die". Tylenol overdose is a somewhat common example, caught early person can be saved, but it's missed there's nothing that can be done. I'm not sure what the practice is for ovarian cysts.

 

[Yeekim]

all just so that men can get more pleasure out of sex

You have never met a woman who has suggested not using condom so that she would get more pleasure out of sex?

 

[Estebonrober]

That is of course beyond the baseline that society just does't take women's pain as seriously as it takes men's pain, e.g.:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/emergency-room-wait-times-sexism/410515/

Sidebar: I've seen these articles and I wonder about them, being in medicine myself because one thing I have learned is that men are huge HUGE babies and women are bloody tough. I've seen spinal columns where I'm not sure how grandma is walking and she walks right in chipper as a kid. I've seen biker guys who look tough as nails cry from injuries I can't even diagnose. So I'm totally open to the idea that a woman's pain isn't taken as seriously, but I'm also open to the idea that men just literally scream a lot more about their pain.

Obviously the above is a generalization and is not universal.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You have never met a woman who has suggested not using condom so that she would get more pleasure out of sex?

Sometimes when they say that it's their actual motive too. Sometimes .

Sidebar: I've seen these articles and I wonder about them, being in medicine myself because one thing I have learned is that men are huge HUGE babies and women are bloody tough.

I've seen a fair few anecdotes cut both ways. Most impressive example was a woman though. Hearing that story, my thoughts were distinctly along the lines of "I'd like to think that if I'm in that same situation I could be that tough, but I have doubts and don't want to find out either way".

 

[Yeekim]

If someone consented how are they a victim? A victim of bad sex? Saying that's overwhelmingly a male issue sounds naive - I'd expect a normal distribution among both populations.

"Bad" as in "painful in an unwished manner". I see no reason to doubt that this is overwhelmingly something that women experience. It is obvious that when it happens, it is most often the fault of their inconsiderate or inexperienced partners.
It is equally obvious that it would help to improve the situation if this pain did not go uncommunicated when it is experienced ... and this is where the women have every power to improve their own condition.

Sometimes when they say that it's their actual motive too. Sometimes ..

Indeed.

 

[Lexicus]

But if a woman anticipates it being harmful, why is she engaging in it?

shouldn't their partner be giving feedback to this effect so they can improve?

If someone consented how are they a victim?

You are quite predictable.

edit: oh, and just to be clear - the idea that your partner would even have to say something for you to know something is wrong, is deeply strange to me.

 

[sophie]

Ethics are not obligations

This is literally, definitionally untrue.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You are quite predictable.

You're not answering the question though. Yeekim did a better job of it.

I see no reason to doubt that this is overwhelmingly something that women experience. It is obvious that when it happens, it is most often the fault of their inconsiderate or inexperienced partners.

30% of women is damning and higher than I'd have guessed. I know there are medical conditions that make pain more likely, but I doubt they're so prevalent as to get anywhere near that rate. It'd make sense to find out what's causing pain and whether it can be avoided.

And yes, this does mean the man needs to know it's happening.

This is literally, definitionally untrue.

That's not clear to me when I look it up, perhaps because there doesn't seem to be an absolute/objective framework to define "ethical". It doesn't appear to be the case that "ethical = legal", as the law allows for some seemingly blatant unethical practices (and in much rarer cases, can punish an ethical choice). This suggests that what you are obligated to do and what is ethical often but don't necessarily align.

 

[Yeekim]

It'd make sense to find out what's causing pain and whether it can be avoided.

Umm... usually, that's not exactly rocket science. As I said - inconsiderate or inexperienced partners.

 

[sophie]

That's not clear to me when I look it up, perhaps because there doesn't seem to be an absolute/objective framework to define "ethical". It doesn't appear to be the case that "ethical = legal", as the law allows for some seemingly blatant unethical practices (and in much rarer cases, can punish an ethical choice). This suggests that what you are obligated to do and what is ethical often but don't necessarily align.

From Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article: "What is Morality"

“Ethics” is sometimes taken to refer to a guide to behavior wider in scope than morality, and that an individual adopts as his or her own guide to life, as long as it is a guide that the individual views as a proper guide for others. When a general guide to behavior of this sort endorses self-interest as primary this is usually because acting in one’s self interest is taken as fostering the interests of all. However, Sidgwick (1874) regarded moral rules as any rational rules of conduct. Moreover, because he held that it is rational to take one’s self-interest as primary, even if others are seriously harmed, he held that “ethical egoism” was an ethical theory. He may have been the primary source of the current philosophical practice that includes ethical egoism—a view that endorses acting in one’s own self-interest even when this requires harming innocent people—as an ethical theory. Because all moralities in the descriptive sense include a prohibition on harming others, ethical egoism is not a morality in the descriptive sense. Because, as will be explained in the following section, all moralities in the normative sense not only include prohibitions on harming others but also are such that all rational persons would endorse that morality, ethical egoism is not a morality in the normative sense either. Only if one equates moral rules with rational rules of conduct—as Sidgwick does—is it possible to regard a guide to conduct that takes one’s own self-interest as sanctioning harming innocent others as a moral guide. Sidgwick does this, but he is decidedly in the minority in this respect.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article: "African Ethics"

The ethics of a society is embedded in the ideas and beliefs about what is right or wrong, what is a good or bad character; it is also embedded in the conceptions of satisfactory social relations and attitudes held by the members of the society; it is embedded, furthermore, in the forms or patterns of behavior that are considered by the members of the society to bring about social harmony and cooperative living, justice, and fairness. The ideas and beliefs about moral conduct are articulated, analyzed, and interpreted by the moral thinkers of the society.

The term ‘ethics’ is technically used by philosophers to mean a philosophical study of morality—morality understood as a set of social rules, principles, norms that guide or are intended to guide the conduct of people in a society, and as beliefs about right and wrong conduct as well as good or bad character. Even though morality is the subject matter of ethics, it is most often used interchangeably with ‘ethics’. In spite of the philosophical inquiries or analyses undertaken by individual moral philosophers regarding morality (i.e., the morality of a society or people)—analyses which often result in diverse positions or conclusions—nevertheless, the basic features, the core elements of the morality of a society, those moral principles and values that actually guide and influence the lives of a people, remain pretty much what they are or have been. What individual moral philosophers, through their critical analyses and arguments, try to do is to explain, clarify, refine, sharpen, or enlarge the understanding of the concepts and issues of morality. Even though the moral beliefs and circumstances of their own societies constitute the immediate focus of their philosophical activities—for human experience is most directly felt within some specific social or cultural context—nevertheless, moral philosophers do not think or imply at all that the results of their reflective activities are to be tethered to their own societies as such. They believe, to the contrary, that, in the light of our common humanity, which speaks to the common sentiments, purposes, responses, hopes, and aspirations of all human beings in respect of certain situations, the conclusions of their reflections would, surely, have implications for the capacious community of humankind, for the universal human family.

Ethics is concerned with the question of good/bad and right and wrong: what do these terms mean, how do we know what is good and bad/right and wrong, where do these concepts ultimately come from, and are universal (metaethics), how does social/personal knowledge of good/bad and right/wrong direct or oblige us to act, and how ought we act in order to be good/right (normative ethics), and how do principles or schema of good/bad and right/wrong apply to specific issues in the society of today (applied ethics). The philosophical definition as commonly employed is heavily tied up in the question of how one ought act, whether to be good in an absolute sense, or to be harmonious with a particular society's norms. Socratic/Platonic/Aristotelian etc. virtue ethics supply a means for determining which acts are good and which acts are bad, and prescriptions for what one ought do if they wish to be good/perform good acts, likewise Kantian Deontological Ethics, likewise Utilitarian Ethics, etc.

Even outside of the strictly academic philosophical context, ethics as it is commonly employed in colloquial speech, is generally concerned with the obligation of action/inaction. Medical ethics impel doctors to "do no harm", and "obtain informed consent from patients," Legal ethics requires the lawyers maintain client-lawyer confidentiality, and Politicians and Judges have an ethical obligation to report and recuse themselves in the event of conflicts of interest.

Ethics isn't strictly concerned with the law. In fact there are many occasions in which an ethical framework is in direct conflict with the law, and that ethical framework would oblige the individual to break the law in that case (e.g. MLK's ethics of nonviolent civil disobedience). However, to maintain that ethics isn't primarily, definitionally concerned with obligation (what one ought do) or a conditional obligation (what one should do if one wants to be good/moral/in harmony with societal norms/etc.) is rather patently false.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

However, to maintain that ethics isn't primarily, definitionally concerned with obligation (what one ought do) or a conditional obligation (what one should do if one wants to be good/moral/in harmony with societal norms/etc.) is rather patently false.

Many ethical theories make distinctions between actions that are morally obligatory, morally impermissible, and morally permissible. A moral obligation is saying something more precise than just that it is good to do something, it's also saying it would be wrong to not do it. To say an action is morally permissible, for example, is certainly in the realm of ethics, but not in the realm of moral obligations.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Children of two parent households have an extreme advantage over single parent households on average.

Unless one of the parents is abusive and/or the parents are constantly fighting.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even outside of the strictly academic philosophical context, ethics as it is commonly employed in colloquial speech, is generally concerned with the obligation of action/inaction.

Seems my issue was that I was applying a stricter standard to "obligation" than the definition actually has. I was under the impression that this was something you *had* to do, but that's not entirely correct and it was more tied to ethics than I thought. This was a mistake on my part, people I know do not usually use it in this context.

Unless one of the parents is abusive and/or the parents are constantly fighting.

I did say on average. Though if a parent re-marries the new spouse has a higher statistical chance of committing abuse than the previous (both minor and serious).

 

[Hrothbern]

I'm just saying that if you want to eradicate unplanned pregnancies, the lowest-hanging fruit is the relatively large proportion that could actually be prevented just by men behaving a little less riskily.
This is not rocket science, imo.

Men should care and act to prevent what can go wrong.
But most men cannot even wash their own clothes properly, until they have to learn it.

My youngest daughter was very good among her girlfriends, discussing their exciting weekends between classes, to get them a morning-after pill when something again happened.
"We go now buy a pill together" leaving the school immediately (you can buy them everywhere).

 

[metalhead]

It also doesn't take an IQ significantly above 100 to notice that the woman's decision is being marginalized outright by the logic that men are primarily responsible for what happens. If the woman has a say in whether sex happens, she is responsible for the act too. If it's unethical, painful, or otherwise problematic, why is she consenting? Why is the sex happening at all in that context?

A "man's world" is one in which male sexual desire is catered to and given primacy, female sexual desire is ignored, or even feared.

Women have a say, of course, but it is also true that what is normalized in our culture is that men are free to obtain consent through pressure, manipulation, intoxication, lies, and even threats and that's generally considered fine. The line of where those activities become unacceptable are only at the very extreme end of the spectrum.

Women are often faced with the awful choice of "consenting" to intercourse or having to potentially face heightened aggression, up to and including physical and/or emotional abuse. This is because socially and legally, there are no repercussions for men aggressively pursuing intercourse without a second thought for how it affects the person they are pursuing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Women are often faced with the awful choice of "consenting" to intercourse or having to potentially face heightened aggression, up to and including physical and/or emotional abuse. This is because socially and legally, there are no repercussions for men aggressively pursuing intercourse without a second thought for how it affects the person they are pursuing.

Might be useful to argue from a framework of observable reality, which quoted isn't.

If someone is doing something you don't like, you leave. If they are going to the point of physical abuse, they are a criminal and there *are* repercussions for assault of any variety.

Women use pressure, intoxication, lies, and threats too. From what I can tell, pressure and threats favor men (threats less so lately), lies favor neither, and the double-standard for intoxication greatly favors women. There are major social and legal barriers to men who are very drunk being taken advantage of while drunk. In fact if two people are similarly intoxicated do something the man can be blamed to the point of legal consequences, despite that his recollection is as bad as the woman's.

If equality is really a goal being pursued, responsibility must also increase. What's comical is that you don't seem to list any significant repercussions for women aggressively pursuing intercourse with men. Are we going for equality or not?

 

[MaryKB]

You have absolutely no concept of reality, you sound like you're completely detached and talking about some theoretical universe in your mind where everything works by how you imagine it should. When you're being dismissive of what people really go through, you're really pat of the problem that's letting it continue. First thing you need to acknowledge is how you're wrong about pretty much everything and these problems exist.

 

[Senethro]

Luckily for TMET, Manfred had already made the most stupid post in the thread. He is saved this time.

- Men lie to women, pretending to use birth control but then removing it half way through

That's some magic trick!

Wow, mega cringe, even in replay!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You have absolutely no concept of reality, you sound like you're completely detached and talking about some theoretical universe in your mind where everything works by how you imagine it should. When you're being dismissive of what people really go through, you're really pat of the problem that's letting it continue. First thing you need to acknowledge is how you're wrong about pretty much everything and these problems exist.

What is quoted has no substantive basis. "You're wrong" without supportive reasoning is not conducive to discussion, and if anybody is being dismissive, it's not me. Significant proportions of what I have posted have been flat out ignored.

In more than one thread I've linked direct source data (in addition to making more falsifiable claims beyond those) against some of the assertions you've made, including recently. You have never answered for a single one of these, so claiming someone else is being "dismissive" is strange.

If you're going to call me out on reality, great. Let's deal in reality. Want so show that I'm mistaken about something? Use some data from said reality that refutes assertions I've made. I make mistakes. I won't be right about everything. But I also won't make provably false claims like "misandry doesn't exist" and then refuse to answer evidence to the contrary when such is proven, which is egregiously dismissive.

Luckily for TMET, Manfred had already made the most stupid post in the thread. He is saved this time.

Men and women both lie about birth control and I have already called that out as extremely unethical in both cases.