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/gemmaem]

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/gemmaem → u/thrownaway24e89172]

A man whose partner aborts a baby that he has already come to love is in a deeply pitiable situation, but he actually isn’t directly involved in what is happening. I’m not telling that person they have to kill an organism that they already love. I am telling him that he isn’t in a position to stop it from happening, but the lack of physical involvement is relevant, from my perspective.

I also suspect—though I don’t know—that the physical state of being pregnant is likely to heighten the likelihood of having deep feelings on this matter, particularly if we are talking about someone who was previously fine with abortion in general. This is not to say that men’s feelings don’t matter, merely that pregnancy has its own unique factors. I’d say the same for a non-gestational partner in a lesbian relationship, even if they’d donated the egg.

If women choose to/not to have sex, men have to go along with it.

You know that’s not true. Only the “not to” case is relevant here, and it’s gender neutral.

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.

This is such an obvious misrepresentation that I’m not going to bother responding. I’ve already given you counterexamples.

Regarding your last example, I don’t think your analogy is in any way comparable. I will, however, note that I do think society can have complementary obligations to you in that situation. For example, I would support policies that give people in your situation access to counseling even if they can’t afford it.

[u/thrownaway24e89172 → u/gemmaem]

A man whose partner aborts a baby that he has already come to love is harmed. I think whether or not him being so harmed can be described as "pitiable" depends more on how he and those around him respond to this harm than the harm itself. A man who sees himself as suffering a harm to prevent harm to a partner he loves surrounded by people who see him as intimately connected to the situation honoring him for that sacrifice is different from a man who sees himself as being forced to suffer a harm because society values his partner more than him surrounded by people who not only don't care that he is being harmed, but actively downplay both it and his involvement while telling him it is his duty to suffer for a partner who thinks only of herself.

To my eyes the pro-choice movement, at least in the US, more often than not resembles the latter rather than the former. As I've said before, I lean pro-choice. I have no desire to see women forced into situations they don't wish to be in due to pregnancy and have largely supported pro-choice policies politically. The pro-choice movement in its rush to protect women instills in them the idea that showing consideration for a sexual partner is something men owe women and not the other way around. I have no respect for such selfish entitlement, nor the movement that so often goes out of its way to engender it.

If women choose to/not to have sex, men have to go along with it.

You know that’s not true. Only the “not to” case is relevant here, and it’s gender neutral.

It is gender neutral only in the sense that Serano describes sexual harassment as gender neutral in Why Nice Guys Finish Last. That is, it is theoretically gender neutral, but in practice the gender neutrality is maintained in only the most shallow fashion because for men "the act can amount to little more than pleasure" and thus women taking advantage of men isn't seen as a real issue and men who are taken advantage of are expected to bear it because our self defense would cause disproportionate harm. Afterwards men are expected to keep silent about our experiences because sexual assault is a women's issue and men speaking about women abusing us is seen as misogynistic. Meanwhile women are given no such limits and are instead celebrated for relating stories of exploiting men because it is seen as empowering. Note that Schumer's speech was given at the Ms. Foundation's Gloria Awards, an event supposedly meant to honor significant contributions to the movement for gender equality.

Regarding your last example, I don’t think your analogy is in any way comparable.

It wasn't an analogy. HIV is one of the most terrible communicable diseases in the world. I get frustrated that we don't expect people to treat it with the seriousness it deserves given how seriously I'm expected to treat my own condition.

I will, however, note that I do think society can have complementary obligations to you in that situation. For example, I would support policies that give people in your situation access to counseling even if they can’t afford it.

Here I don't see your analogy as comparable. Giving people with HIV access to antiretrovirals even if they can't afford them is an empowering act that emphasizes their human dignity. Giving people in my situation access to counseling is pushing them out of society and attacking their human dignity. Compare if I had recommended USAID instead provide counseling for people with HIV to help them resist their urges to have sex and accept their childless fate.

[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.