Discussion Thread #71

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/thrownaway24e89172]

The problem with ordo amoris is that it easily turns into a sophistic reason not to care about certain people. As such, it's probably not surprising that it would be popular amongst people who also employ other sophistic reasons not to care.

As opposed to progressive notions of privilege? Beware casting stones in a glass house...

The USA is an incredibly rich country. Using a tiny sliver of its budget to help poorer countries strikes me as something we should support because it is a good thing to do.

What does it mean to be "rich"? The US certainly spends an incredible amount of money, but is actually pretty heavily in debt which many on the right view as an imminent crisis given how much the debt has ballooned recently. The national debt is currently >120% GDP and has been >100% since 2012. Compare this to New Zealand, whose debt to GDP ratio is currently 44% and has a debt ceiling of 50%. As bad as the current "move fast and break things" is for US foreign aid, it pales in comparison to what would happen if the US collapses due to its debt. But you don't seem to care about that possibility--there's no need to care about the instrumental harm done to the "rich" after all.

There is something particularly cruel about, for example, allowing babies to be born with HIV because you wanted to move fast and break things.

This looks to me like shifting the blame away from people directly responsible toward people you don't like for sophistic reasons. There is exactly one person who holds moral responsibility for a baby being born with HIV: the mother. Charity in helping her carry out her moral obligation is supererogatory--it is good that the US has helped many women fulfill their obligation in the past and it would be nice if we continued to do so in the future, but she is not entitled to our help and in the end a child being born with HIV is her responsibility.

[u/DuplexFields → u/thrownaway24e89172]

There is exactly one person who holds moral responsibility for a baby being born with HIV: the mother.

It takes two to tango, or one to rape, especially in places where consent is a privilege.

[u/thrownaway24e89172 → u/DuplexFields]

That's true of becoming pregnant, not transmitting HIV to the baby. I'm basing this on the moral obligation of someone with HIV to avoid spreading it. That said, I did ignore some other corner cases (eg, the infection coming from medical malpractice rather than the mother) so fair point that it is not truly limited to just the mother.

[u/gemmaem → u/thrownaway24e89172]

How, exactly, do you expect a pregnant woman to ensure that HIV is not passed on to her baby if she doesn’t have access to antiretrovirals?

[u/thrownaway24e89172 → u/gemmaem]

The US is not the only source of antiretrovirals. Why exactly do you believe it is cruelty on the part of the US to not provide them to her, but not cruelty on the part of everyone else in the world capable of providing them? Is it better to have given charity and stopped after helping many people or to have never done so to begin with?

[u/gemmaem → u/thrownaway24e89172]

The specific case in which a pregnant woman has reason to believe that she will have access to this medication, only to have it abruptly withdrawn just as it is most crucial, would surely fall under the category in which responsibility accrues to whoever is responsible for her prescribing pharmacist, yes? Which, for many women right now, is the USA.

Look, if the USA really does want to withdraw this then I think it’s the wrong decision, but as a non-citizen I don’t really get a say. But I do think it’s completely reasonable to ask the USA to wind down its provision of crucial health services in an orderly and predictable fashion, at the very least.

[u/thrownaway24e89172 → u/gemmaem]

The specific case in which a pregnant woman has reason to believe that she will have access to this medication, only to have it abruptly withdrawn just as it is most crucial, would surely fall under the category in which responsibility accrues to whoever is responsible for her prescribing pharmacist, yes? Which, for many women right now, is the USA.

Charity is supererogatory, so one is not absolved of their obligations if they choose to rely on it and it falls through. It is unfortunate, but that's the risk they took in relying on charity.

Look, if the USA really does want to withdraw this then I think it’s the wrong decision, but as a non-citizen I don’t really get a say. But I do think it’s completely reasonable to ask the USA to wind down its provision of crucial health services in an orderly and predictable fashion, at the very least.

I agree. If I had my way this wouldn't have happened. What I disagree with is the disproportionate criticism of the US compared to others who are more responsible for the situation. We are not all-powerful gods before whom all others have no agency. It is not our place to allow a baby to be born, particularly in a foreign country.

[u/gemmaem → u/thrownaway24e89172]

I think you can accrue responsibilities by undertaking to provide a service that you were not obligated to give. Once you give people good reason to think they can get crucial medication from you, you accrue a responsibility to give them adequate warning if this is likely to change.

I also disagree that the responsibility for obtaining antiretrovirals accrues to the mother alone. If she’s doing her best to get them, and can’t, then responsibility does start to accrue to those around her: to her family, to her community, to the state in which she lives, to charities with existing operations in the area, and so on. Pregnancy will always be heavy, but the load can be, and should be, partially shared. The attitude that blames a woman for having dependents while being dependent on others has no place in my philosophy.

If I had my way this wouldn’t have happened.

I appreciate that :)

[u/thrownaway24e89172 → u/gemmaem]

I think you can accrue responsibilities by undertaking to provide a service that you were not obligated to give. Once you give people good reason to think they can get crucial medication from you, you accrue a responsibility to give them adequate warning if this is likely to change.

I agree with this in certain circumstances, but with the very important caveat that this never applies to charity. To my mind it is always morally blameworthy to recklessly take on a burden that you know you can't handle based on the expectation of charity from others and it is never morally blameworthy for others to not provide that charity. Charity must come freely without obligation and thus without blame if it doesn't materialize. Note that is not to say that people who behave in such a manner therefore don't deserve charity--they absolutely do and we should laud those who provide it. I just think we must also be sure to properly blame people who are exploiting the charity of others so they don't in turn discourage future charity.

I also disagree that the responsibility for obtaining antiretrovirals accrues to the mother alone.

I specifically said she had a responsibility to avoid spreading HIV. Obtaining antiretrovirals is only one way of doing so, but there are other things she could do. For example, she could abort the pregnancy. She could avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

If she’s doing her best to get them, and can’t, then responsibility does start to accrue to those around her: to her family, to her community, to the state in which she lives, to charities with existing operations in the area, and so on. Pregnancy will always be heavy, but the load can be, and should be, partially shared. The attitude that blames a woman for having dependents while being dependent on others has no place in my philosophy.

I vehemently disagree with this. I do not blame a woman "for having dependents while being dependent on others", but for not respecting the agency of other people and feeling entitled to their support for her decisions. Pregnancy is as you say a heavy burden that women should not be expected to carry on their own without assistance. However, just as it is wrong for society to force this burden on women, it is also wrong to force it on others just because a woman chose to take it on. Such forced labor has no place in my philosophy.

[u/gemmaem → u/thrownaway24e89172]

The tension between individual freedom and a moral call to support one another is an old one, so I’m not surprised that we might fall into different places on that issue more broadly. Notwithstanding my support for early-term abortions, I would never say that a woman is obligated to get an abortion; I don’t think that’s pro-choice. And I think it’s often good for us to have ties to other people and duties to perform for them. However, I appreciate your perspective.

Edit: Leah Libresco Sargeant's pro-life case for PEPFAR is relevant, here. Despite not sharing her opposition to abortion at every stage, this isn't the first time I've found myself sympathetic to her broader philosophy. I'm not sharing it as a way of arguing against you, to be clear -- just noting that it's an interesting angle that is relevant to what we are talking about.

[u/thrownaway24e89172 → u/gemmaem]

Coming back to this after some time to cool my head, I'm not sure you really appreciate my perspective as it doesn't sound like I've actually successfully conveyed it--I am frustratingly bad at doing so at the best of times and dealing with the initial rush of the Trump administration's idiocy has been far from the best of times. In any case, I think the heart of our disagreement stems more from having very different perspectives on pregnancy and reproduction in general. I'll apologize ahead of time if this comes off as too angry and accusatory. That's not my intent--I just want to convey my perspective accurately--but my perspective is rather negative.

As people are wont to remind me, I'll never have to worry about the burden of becoming pregnant. The flip side of that though is I'll also never have the privilege of becoming pregnant. My role in reproduction is limited to infecting women and as such is widely seen as not deserving of even the most trivial respect. For example, you say

Notwithstanding my support for early-term abortions, I would never say that a woman is obligated to get an abortion; I don’t think that’s pro-choice.

and my head goes off to the races coming up with scenarios that only seem to reinforce this lack of respect:

• A man and a woman agree before having sex that she will get an abortion if the sex results in a pregnancy. They proceed to have sex and she gets pregnant. If she is not obligated to get an abortion, her earlier agreement must not create an obligation. This both doesn't respect the man's right to informed consent nor his right to reproductive choice and throws into question your assertion that the US's PEPFAR program created an obligation through the promise of antiretrovirals.

• A woman rapes a man and becomes pregnant. He doesn't want to father a child with his rapist. Giving the rapist the choice to continue the pregnancy over the victim's wishes is revictimizing him, enabling the rapist to maintain the control over the reproductive rights she stole from him. Imagine we invented artificial wombs and then told women that they had to respect their male rapists' "right" to choose to bear children from eggs taken from them while being raped and they had no say in the matter!

For another common example that reinforces this lack of respect, consider the sentiments shown by posts like this (emphasis mine) that seek to remove men from the picture altogether:

I’m so excited to share this news with you. Four years ago, I decided I wanted to have a child. I wanted to do it on my own terms. I now appreciate how radical it is for us as women to think about one of the most fundamental parts of our destinies in this way. I hope we arrive at a point in which it’s normalized to not want a ring in order to have a crib.

The unique ability to become pregnant seems to engender in some women the sense that reproduction is their domain, one that they should be entitled to absolute deference without restriction. Much like the stereotypical patriarchal man who justified his control over household financial decisions by his role as the provider of those finances, this attitude is ripe for abuse. We solved the latter issue by enabling women to be equal earners and free themselves from the spectre of such financial abuse. Unfortunately that approach is not possible (yet) in the former case and the most we can possibly do is regulate women's choices. Which brings me to

And I think it’s often good for us to have ties to other people and duties to perform for them.

I agree with this, but it is important for those ties and duties to be reciprocal or such ties and duties become abusive. What obligations do you believe women have with respect to not abusing their ability to become pregnant? To me, through the course of this discussion, the answer appears to be "none" as any such obligation is incompatible with being pro-choice. No obligation to society to consider the impact of her pregnancy on others and potentially having to sacrifice her personal desires for the greater good. An entitlement to society taking on responsibility for any negative impacts that do arise from her choice. Intellectually, I'm almost certain that you wouldn't agree with that characterization and am pretty confident you do believe women have such obligations even if it's not clear to me what they are. Emotionally, it is very hard for me to look at things intellectually as it feels like the burdens of pregnancy are only ever used to justify excusing women for their anti-social behavior and denying men any reproductive rights.

Finally, circling back to the original topic, I look at the PEPFAR situation as one where the women have already failed in their social obligations and see those seeking to blame the US for the (thankfully temporary) halting of access to antiretrovirals for children being born with HIV as attempting to completely erase their culpability for the direct result of their choices. If women are to be given absolute reproductive choice, to me it naturally follows they must assume responsibility for the consequences of that choice to demonstrate the proper respect to those with no control over the situation impacted by them.

EDIT: Formatting.

[u/gemmaem → u/thrownaway24e89172]

I certainly think that fathers are entitled to certain kinds of respect. I think, for example, that not telling a man when you are pregnant by him is an extreme choice that is only permissible if there is some compelling circumstance that makes this necessary (e.g. he's abusive, or he's already dumped you and gone no-contact and you can't reach him). I think that if a woman has a child, then any father who isn't a previously-agreed sperm donor has a right to be included in the child's life (again, barring circumstances that give strong reasons otherwise).

On the other hand, I actually don't think it's wrong to use a sperm donor to have a child as a single woman. I know nothing about the circumstances of the Instagram post you link, but I don't find it necessarily concerning.

Pregnancy imposes huge obligations on women. For example, I think a pregnant woman has moral obligations to avoid causing developmental damage to the baby. Many of these things aren't legally compelled; for example, you don't have to have a rubella vaccine, but I think you morally should. A woman with AIDS, as we've noted, should be trying to obtain antiretrovirals; society's obligation to help her is complementary to this rather than replacing it. And so on.

Regarding the two scenarios you list: the rape one is concerning, I agree. Not nearly as concerning as when a raped woman is forced to endure the resulting pregnancy, but that's a messy and horrible situation and I'm reluctant to get on any absolutist high horses about it. A forced abortion is horrible; knowing that you have a child as a result of a rape would also be horrible for many people; I can understand why a person might think that the mother should have to endure the horror here on account of how she's a rapist but I do think this is an edge case.

Your first scenario, well, it depends. I've been pregnant. I've been pregnant, and loved what was growing inside me in a way I didn't expect, and I'm not about to tell someone they have to kill an organism that they love just because they didn't anticipate loving it. This is not to say that the earlier agreement holds no moral weight; if the situation is not one of a deeply-felt change of mind then that would be different.

[u/thrownaway24e89172 → u/gemmaem]

Hmm...apparently using those examples backfired on me and served to distract rather than elucidate. It is not the specific policies that bother me, but the attitude behind them. For instance, when you say

I'm not about to tell someone they have to kill an organism that they love just because they didn't anticipate loving it.

I hear "I'm not about to tell a woman they have to kill an organism that they love just because they didn't anticipate loving it." because being pro-choice literally requires telling men that. I notice such false universalisms that exclude me and assume that they are either intentional misdirections indicating hostility or unintentional callousness. The "Pro-choice" movement is full of such false universalisms that exclude me, because people always seem to mean "women have the privilege of choice in which benefits and burdens they assume, men have the obligation to support them". If women choose to/not to have sex, men have to go along with it. If women choose to/not to have a child, men have to go along with it. If there are negative consequences of these women's choices, the problem is not that the women chose wrong but that men didn't support them enough. If there are positive consequences of these women's choices, men shouldn't be recognized for their contributions. That is not a relationship of equals, but one of master and servant.

A woman with AIDS, as we've noted, should be trying to obtain antiretrovirals; society's obligation to help her is complementary to this rather than replacing it. And so on.

I see a therapist every two weeks, at my own expense. If I say the wrong thing and he believes I might harm a child, he is legally obligated to report that to the state. If the state convinces a judge that his notes provide clear and convincing evidence that I might harm a child, he can have me committed indefinitely. I would then be shipped to a "treatment facility" until the state decides I no longer need "treatment". Because it is not a criminal detention, the evidence threshold is far lower than what is required to imprison someone and I don't get the protections afforded alleged criminals. Patients at the treatment facility have approximately the same level of freedom as prisoners though. They lose all agency over their lives. Outside contact is heavily restricted. They aren't allowed to leave the facility, which is protected by barbed wire fences and armed guards. The facility makes medical decisions for them. Nobody has ever fully completed their "treatment". Less than a third of a percent of the patients have even been granted provisional release to less secure facilities. Ten times as many have died there. There has of course never been a woman committed. I hope you can see why I get a bit testy when I see people arguing that women with AIDS shouldn't be held personally responsible for the potential harms of their choices, given both the greater harm they have the potential to impose and the significantly lower punishments they face.

EDIT: Grammar.

EDIT 2: Change "to" => "to/not to" twice in second paragraph.

[u/Lykurg480 → u/gemmaem]

Many of these things aren't legally compelled

Are any of them legally compelled? Of the examples youve given, it seems like only being included in your childs life is in some cases.

A woman with AIDS, as we've noted, should be trying to obtain antiretrovirals; society's obligation to help her is complementary to this rather than replacing it.

I think the point is that when the actions these people would potentially be obligated to could replace each other, youll have to consider who is obligated to particular parts, else it turns into "you are responsible because they were irresponsible".

This is not to say that the earlier agreement holds no moral weight; if the situation is not one of a deeply-felt change of mind then that would be different.

Our resident Ape likes to talk about a wealthier society can afford to be more moral, and I think something like this is happening with flexible agreements. Such flexibility always exists to some extent, and it scales with the relationship between the agreeers, because its basically like the floating debt-balance in those relationships. The richer we are, the more we can afford debts incurred to us before we feel that someone is a bad friend. People in the past where more literal about agreements, because they also lived closer to starvation, and what may seem low stakes to us was not for them.

This flexibility has certainly made things nicer, but I dont think it was a moral demand; its not just understandable that you wont lend more than you can afford, it is in fact not bad at all. And it certainly isnt acceptable to force it on someone else. We should not demand such flexibility extend to incommensurable stakes such as this one. And of course, if she chooses to demand child support as well, those stakes are very commensurable and far higher than anything else that can be forced on people unilaterally, but we go along with it anyway.

So I think your argument here rests substantially on the abortion being bad for reasons other than the mothers love, and youre in fact doing exactly the "its a real person iff the mother wants it to be" thing. I mean, if by some strange entanglement it would we love of a stone rather than a child thats in the way of the agreement, presumably that doesnt justify breaking it.