Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is "When Does Life Begin?" a Scientific or Moral Question? Both?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The most common/dominating circumstance is likely mutual nonconcern about whether pregnancy occurs due to mutually consenting sex.  

I think you're conflating sex with the act of internal, unprotected, and unwanted ejaculation. These are two very different things, and one person bears the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for the irresponsible occurrence of one. 

Edited by Dan McClellan
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Anijen said:

Emphasis mine in both quotes..

SMAC wrote: 

 

Just a small curious question, I sincerely would like to know; if the paper is a Phd dissertation, (as SMAC mentioned in the OP), does that not mean it was peer reviewed by the Phd holders evaluating that dissertation and I always thought dissertations in their nature is a form of publishing?

The paper is not his dissertation, it was written for a class. His dissertation is on the role of scientist's opinions in public debate. A dissertation is not a publication, though, and to my knowledge, it is not considered part of the peer-review process as prototypically understood. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I do happen to know how babies are made. A male ejaculates inside the vagina of a woman. Tell me, what circumstance predominates in unwanted pregnancies, a man ejaculating without a woman's consent/knowledge and not being concerned about whether or not she gets pregnant, or a woman forcing a man to ejaculate without his consent/knowledge and without wanting to be pregnant? This is a very, very easy question to answer. 

I'd agree with you about both parties needing to bear equal responsibility, but that absolutely will not happen in our culture anytime near our lifetime, and I bet you can tell me precisely why the law for the foreseeable future will overwhelmingly privilege the interests of men.

Dan, my dear friend, you are stretching at this. A woman engages in sex because she wants to engage in sex. She is a competent, thinking being in the same way her male partner is. They both choose to have sex with one another. The female does not have more responsibility any more than the male has more responsibility. The mere fact they both choose to engage in sexual intercourse necessitates a beginning and an end. The simple reality of a female having previously released her egg and the the male ejaculates in no way affects who is responsible. 

Overwhelmingly privileges the man? Dan, really, get off the feminist Kool-Aid, it leads to a dead mind. The laws are written and both are affected. Who do they favor? It all depends on what law and at what time. The next time you being to question that, talk to a man that has gone through a divorce about the rights he has versus those of the mother. Or, when a one night stand turns into a lifetime of giving a stranger funds for a child they created whether the child actually receives the benefits or not. This is a topic where both can point fingers and it serves little purpose.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, california boy said:

 If we never did anything that we didn't know the answer to already, what would the world look like today?

Higher risks should bring higher cautions.  When the potential result of acting in ignorance is homocide and there is little benefit to acting as would be the case for shooting into a box or air or distance, better not to act just in case, don't you think?

Guns are always risky, firing them without any idea what the target might be and therefore knowingly taking the risk without anticipation of benefit besides enjoyment, how is that not immoral?  Even if nothing living is hurt, there will be a probability of property damage.

You see an box on the road.  You can run over it or not.  Chances are it is empty, but you don't have to run over it if you choose not to.  Choosing to run over it while not knowing if doing so might harm abandoned kittens or baby is a moral choice, Imo.  There is no way for me to know that I will kill someone if I drive drunk does not excuse me if I choose to take the risk and end up killing someone.  There are plenty of laws limiting risky behaviour that have potential to harm others, but may not.

Choosing to act in ignorance when there is increased risk of harm by doing so and little benefit otherwise is a moral choice.  Acting with full knowledge should be a matter of judging risks of action vs doing nothing as well as benefits of the same.  Ignorance is not an excuse to avoid responsibility. 

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I think you're conflating sex with the act of internal, unprotected, and unwanted ejaculation. These are two very different things, and one person bears the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for the irresponsible occurrence of one. 

I am talking about what you referred to---unwanted pregnancies, most of which I believe are not the result of nonconsenual unprotected internal ejaculation (sex was consensual perhaps, but one party understood protection was agreed upon while the other withheld it...say knowingly used a faulty condom or diaphragm) or rape.  Forced unwanted pregnancies (either a woman or man unwilling becoming a parent) seems to me a much less common reason for abortions than unforced, but unwanted pregnancies with both engaging in sex (one can get pregnant without internal ejaculation, though less likely of course, so I don't think it accurate to limit cause of pregnancies to solely internal ejaculation; sperm just needs some form of transportation, intentional or not) without taking precautions to avoid conception.

Perhaps I missed something in the reasoning (were you only talking about assault or rape?); if not, I don't understand why a talk about responsibility for unwanted pregnancies does not include carelessness by both the man and the woman.  Surely all causes should be considered?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Dan, my dear friend, you are stretching at this. A woman engages in sex because she wants to engage in sex.

That's not always the truth.  However, the great majority of the time, when a man engages in sex it is because he wants to.  That's just a fact, IMO....and for sure it's an area that is not equal in occurrences (the number of men raped or physically forced to have sex vs. the number of women who are raped or physically forced to have sex...).

I agree that there are women who get pregnant on purpose (and tell the guy she's on the pill, for example) or who are careless.  There's carelessness on both sides that can result in an unwanted pregnancy.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I hope you don't think I'm suggesting your perspective isn't reasonable and good faith just because I'm criticizing it.

I have no problem whatsoever with you critiquing and critizing my arguments.  That is why I started this threa.  However, I think your accusation that there is some sort of nefarious, conspiratorial "agenda" to "control the agency of women," and that I am part of it, is absurd and false and stupid.  I reject it out of hand.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Overwhelmingly privileges the man? Dan, really, get off the feminist Kool-Aid, it leads to a dead mind.

I think he's made some great points and have really enjoyed his participation on this thread.  Just because you disagree with some of what he's stated, does not mean he's been drinking the "feminist Kool-Aid".

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

The laws are written and both are affected. Who do they favor? It all depends on what law and at what time. The next time you being to question that, talk to a man that has gone through a divorce about the rights he has versus those of the mother.

I agree regarding divorce laws and rights.  That is getting much better with many men now getting 50% physical custody and more equal rights.  It used to be very heavily weighted in favor of the mother, but not as much today.  I see that as great progress too.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Or, when a one night stand turns into a lifetime of giving a stranger funds for a child they created whether the child actually receives the benefits or not. This is a topic where both can point fingers and it serves little purpose.

Do you believe the father should not have to contribute or help the mother?  There's no easy answer to this (when it was just a one night stand and the mother chooses to go through with the pregnancy and raise the child).  But it's the mother who goes through the months of pregnancy and then child birth.  Then, she's the one who is raising a child (and on her own if she does not later marry).  Many of these single moms are good mothers too (or marry good men who help raise the child).....but the birth father still has a responsibility here.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

there is some sort of nefarious, conspiratorial "agenda" to "control the agency of women," and that I am part of it, is absurd and false and stupid

Could someone be a part of a conspiracy if one is not aware it exists?  They can certainly be influenced by it, but being part of a conspiracy seems to imply intention to me.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could someone be a part of a conspiracy if one is not aware it exists?  They can certainly be influenced by it, but being part of a conspiracy seems to imply intention to me.

The legal concept of "conspiracy" necessarily requires both an agreement between two more more people, and intent.  See here:

Quote

Conspiracy

An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."

I had appreciated Dan's vigorous-yet-civil arguments and comments in this thread, but then he trotted out a concpiracy theory and publicly accused me of being part of it.

I'm taking him less seriously now.  

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

and publicly accused me of being part of it

I read it as you being significantly influenced by it rather than part of it....though if one adopts beliefs etc, one can contribute to the issue even if not part of the conspiracy.

Perhaps Dan can clarify what he meant.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The paper is not his dissertation, it was written for a class. His dissertation is on the role of scientist's opinions in public debate. A dissertation is not a publication, though, and to my knowledge, it is not considered part of the peer-review process as prototypically understood. 

I'm not particularly inclined to judge an idea based primarily on it having been peer reviewed or not.  Here are a few reasons why:

  1. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
  2. Let's stop pretending peer review works
  3. When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review (Illustrating some of the most common ways that things can go wrong during peer review – and what to do if this happens)
  4. Peer Review is Not Scientific (How a process designed to ensure scientific rigor is tainted by randomness, bias, and arbitrary delays.)
  5. Is Peer Review A Big Bad Joke? (You, too, could have a paper in a science journal! An investigation reveals that dozens of sketchy titles were happy to publish a study so egregiously flawed it almost had to be fake.)
  6. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems (How to reform the journal publication process.)
  7. Phony peer review: The more we look, the more we find
  8. This Study Just Revealed Why The Peer-Review Process Is in So Much Trouble (In recent years, scientists have been warning us about a reproducibility crisis in science, which has seen many seminal papers - particularly in psychology - failing to hold up when an independent team tries to reproduce the results.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I read it as you being significantly influenced by it rather than part of it....though if one adopts beliefs etc, one can contribute to the issue even if not part of the conspiracy.

Perhaps Dan can clarify what he meant.

He said (to me): "And yet you pivoted away from the demonstrably most effective means to mention only the non-legislative and non-effective one that is part of the 'controlling the agency of women' agenda."

Kinda hard to take that as anything other than a public accusation that I subscribe to "the 'controlling the agency of women' agenda."

But as you say, perhas Dan can clarify what he meant.

Dan?  Any clarification or retraction coming our way?

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Dan, my dear friend, you are stretching at this. A woman engages in sex because she wants to engage in sex. She is a competent, thinking being in the same way her male partner is. They both choose to have sex with one another. The female does not have more responsibility any more than the male has more responsibility. The mere fact they both choose to engage in sexual intercourse necessitates a beginning and an end. The simple reality of a female having previously released her egg and the the male ejaculates in no way affects who is responsible. 

Surely you recognize that consent to sex is NOT consent to internal ejaculation? In fact, many countries define ejaculation without consent as rape, even when the sex was consensual.

Quote

Overwhelmingly privileges the man? Dan, really, get off the feminist Kool-Aid, it leads to a dead mind. The laws are written and both are affected. Who do they favor? It all depends on what law and at what time. The next time you being to question that, talk to a man that has gone through a divorce about the rights he has versus those of the mother. Or, when a one night stand turns into a lifetime of giving a stranger funds for a child they created whether the child actually receives the benefits or not. This is a topic where both can point fingers and it serves little purpose.

Yes, whom is favored depends on the law and the time, and for the majority of the laws and the majority of the time, the interests of men are favored. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He said (to me): "And yet you pivoted away from the demonstrably most effective means to mention only the non-legislative and non-effective one that is part of the 'controlling the agency of women' agenda."

Kinda hard to take that as anything other than a public accusation that I subscribe to "the 'controlling the agency of women' agenda."

But as you say, perhas Dan can clarify what he meant.

Dan?  Any clarification or retraction coming our way?

-Smac

I was not saying you subscribe to that agenda, but that your rhetoric shows its influence, whether intentional or otherwise. I tried to make that clear, but I guess I needed to be more explicit.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The legal concept of "conspiracy" necessarily requires both an agreement between two more more people, and intent.  See here:

I had appreciated Dan's vigorous-yet-civil arguments and comments in this thread, but then he trotted out a concpiracy theory and publicly accused me of being part of it.

I'm taking him less seriously now.  

-Smac

Also, I don't treat it as a conspiracy, I treat it as an ideological movement.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Also, I don't treat it as a conspiracy, I treat it as an ideological movement.

An "ideological movement" comprised of people with a commonly-held "agenda" (defined as "an underlying often ideological plan or program").

Oh, and it's also a "rubric" (defined as an "established mode of conduct or procedure; protocol") that is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation."

And it's "built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women."

Absolutely, mind you.  

But it's not a "conspiracy."  Got it.  🤨

Whatever you are claiming here is not an agreement of two or more people to commit a wrongful act (namely, "controlling the agency of women")?  No intent to achieve that act?

You are peddling nothing but a conspiracy theory, Dan.  And you are accusing people on this board of being part of it.  Not cool.  Not informed.  And not true.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I'd recommend looking into dual-process cognition, which demonstrates that our cognition occupies a spectrum between the intuitive and the reflective. Evolution and shared patterns of human experience create a high degree of consistency on the intuitive side of our cognition, which is more automatic, faster, and subconscious. This cognition bleeds into that cognition over which we have conscious control, which is where that diversity of personal experience comes into play. The two poles of this spectrum frequently conflict, and we can take one of two approaches when that happens. We can decouple, which is when our reflective cognition overrules our intuitive, or we can rationalize, which is when the reflective side buttresses and defends the intuitive. Identity politics is a function of intuitive cognition, so while we may come up with a myriad of different ways to explain, rationalize, or defend it, it frequently comes back down to our subconscious impulse to advance our interests within a group that is important to our self-identity. A very good and accessible discussion of many of these dynamics is Haidt, The Righteous Mind

Thanks for the reference, I will check it out.

My disagreement was with the implication of the self being totally contingent. And of course social psychology is not often seen as a "hard" science.

And certainly I would argue the left is as guilty at least of identity politics as is the right.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Calm said:

In that body, but don't we assume another body will be given it?

I probably shouldn’t have commented on this as it is more speculative than I am comfortable with, but that has not been my assumption.  

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Also, I don't treat it as a conspiracy, I treat it as an ideological movement.

May I ask a question?

Are you saying that those who believe the state's police power should be employed to protect the lives-in-being of viable foeti necessarily adhere to that ideological movement?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's not always the truth.  However, the great majority of the time, when a man engages in sex it is because he wants to.  That's just a fact, IMO....and for sure it's an area that is not equal in occurrences (the number of men raped or physically forced to have sex vs. the number of women who are raped or physically forced to have sex...).

I agree that there are women who get pregnant on purpose (and tell the guy she's on the pill, for example) or who are careless.  There's carelessness on both sides that can result in an unwanted pregnancy.

Hello, I tend to avoid the extremes. Given the number of times people have sex in a given day, can we just agree that rape is a very small percentage? If two people chose to have sex together, they are both are responsible and should both be involved should a child result. I am serious about this - if a man makes a baby that man must be financially held accountable for that child. If a man gets three different women pregnant then sterilize him. He has proven he is not capable of making proper decisions and society should not be responsible for his complete lack of control. The same for a woman.

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

May I ask a question?

Are you saying that those who believe the state's police power should be employed to protect the lives-in-being of viable foeti necessarily adhere to that ideological movement?

I'm also curious as to the particulars of this "movement."  Who is in charge of it?  Who are its members?  Does it have headquarters?  Is it organized?  Does it solicit donations?  Does it have a 501(c)(3) organization?  Has this nefarious "control the agency of women" agenda been published somewhere?  A manifesto?  With signatories?  And printed using Right Wing Patriarchy font, perhaps?

Given that Dan is insisting that this "movement" is "absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women," the factual predicates of these claims must be easy to present to us.  Right?

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I think you're conflating sex with the act of internal, unprotected, and unwanted ejaculation. These are two very different things, and one person bears the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for the irresponsible occurrence of one. 

Dan, this makes no sense. This is the first time I have ever encountered someone make or take such a position. Not once in my life time, in any conversation about human sexual relations, have I hard a woman or a man say, "I really like to have sex, but boy it ticks me off when a man ejaculates!"  Not once; not even hinted at. 

You seem to be conflating birth control with having sex. Further, you are making it the primary responsibility of the male for birth control. Why? Two people have sex and both are equally responsible. To say that men are more responsible, which you have stated a few times, seems both condescending and demeaning to females - are they not capable of taking care of themselves and need the big, strong, superior male to do it for them? 

Just a strange way of thinking I have not heard before. 

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Given that Dan is insisting that this "movement" is "absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women," the factual predicates of these claims must be easy to present to us.  Right?

Probably not, seeing as how pretty much everything I have ever seen on the subject comports with the notion that the majority of anti-abortion activism is constituted by women.  

Demographics
Studies indicate that activists within the American anti-abortion movement are predominantly white and educated, with a majority of anti-abortion activism constituted by women. Scholars continue to dispute the primary factors that cause individuals to become anti-abortion activists. While some have suggested that a particular moral stance or worldview leads to activism, others have suggested that activism leads individuals to develop particular moral positions and worldviews.

A 1981 survey of dues paying members of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) [which happens to be the oldest and largest pro-life organization, with roots in the Catholic church, not any political party - Amulek] by sociologist Donald O. Granberg found that survey respondents held conservative views on sex, sex education, and contraception. Additionally, Granberg's survey provided basic demographic characteristics of his sample: 98% of survey respondents were white, 63% were female, 58% had a college degree, and 70% were Catholic. Granberg concluded that conservative personal morality was the primary mechanism for explaining an individual's involvement in the anti-abortion movement.

A 2002 study by Carol J.C. Maxwell drawing on decades of survey and interview data of direct-action activists within the anti-abortion movement found that 99% of the sample was white, 60% was female, 51% had a college degree, and 29% were Catholic. Like Granberg's 1981 study, Maxwell concluded that anti-abortion and pro-choice activists held two different worldviews which in turn are formed by two different moral centers.

More recently [2008 - Amulek], sociologist Ziad Munson studied the characteristics of both activists and non-activists who considered themselves anti-abortion. The anti-abortion activists of Munson's sample were 93% white, 57% female, 66% Catholic, and 71% had a college degree. Of non-activists who considered themselves anti-abortion, Munson found that 83% were white, 52% were female, 45% were Catholic, and 76% had a college degree. In Munson's analysis personal moralities and worldviews are formed as a consequence of participation in anti-abortion activism. Munson's analysis differs from previous scholarly work in its assertion that beliefs result from activism rather than causing activism. For Munson, life course factors make an individual more or less likely to become an activist.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm also curious as to the particulars of this "movement."  Who is in charge of it?  Who are its members?  Does it have headquarters?  Is it organized?  Does it solicit donations?  Does it have a 501(c)(3) organization?  Has this nefarious "control the agency of women" agenda been published somewhere?  A manifesto?  With signatories?  And printed using Right Wing Patriarchy font, perhaps?

Given that Dan is insisting that this "movement" is "absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women," the factual predicates of these claims must be easy to present to us.  Right?

I similarly find efforts to ascribe the particular pro-life sentiments expressed on this thread as part of some agenda to "control the agency of women" to be unnecessary and disconcerting. Most of us are influenced in complex and nuanced ways by a variety of ideological perspectives, a fact which should make us less inclined to naively stereotype others. There is no evidence that I can see that smac97 subscribes (consciously or unconsciously) to an agenda which "prioritizes the agency of men over women." I believe one would have to make a number of over-generalizations to reach such a conclusion.   

Edited by Ryan Dahle
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...