The human race nears extinction--is forcing a woman to give birth acceptable?

[Freudian_Slit]

@Hellestal

The survival of our species is in jeopardy!

What do we need? More executions!

Duh, we have to slaughter the village to save it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@even_sven

The world has gone to hell and there is no fixing it. Do you:

A: Wait it out, do your best, and if things get too miserable, kill yourself in a peaceful and dignified way.

B: Start raping people.

Seems to me the answer good people should choose is obvious. I still don’t understand how a moral obligation to people who don’t exist somehow outweighs your moral obligations to people who do exist, feel suffering, etc.

See, this is what I’m talking about. If there’s no fixing it, that’s clearly a different hypothetical from the one I thought we were talking about. And I have absolutely no interest in any moral obligation to people who don’t exist; that doesn’t enter into my equation whatsoever.

[Cat_Fight]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

That would put you in the same situation as females of all other sexual species, and I don’t hear them complaining.

Maybe if you took off their muzzles first?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@jsgoddess

I hope that you’re actually trying to convince people what a bad idea the forced childbirth plan is. Because if not, ouch. I don’t think you have a future in PR.

My proposal accepts the woman’s right to exercise control over her own body, only to the extent that nature allows. Thrust a peach pit up your vagina is okay with me, but I would take issue with whoever provided you with a condom or any other technologically based device that would imply someone else implicit in the decision to prevent the next generation of humanity.

By the same token, I would not force you to initiate the procedure towards childbirth.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

My proposal accepts the woman’s right to exercise control over her own body, only to the extent that nature allows.

There is no definition of “nature” that makes your post make the least bit of sense. Human beings either are a part of nature, in which case so is Nonoxynol 9, or else we’re not, in which case a peach-pit-diaphragm isn’t natural, either.

This is the worst sort of fuzzy-headed “nature” mysticism that could possibly plague a discussion.

[Cat_Fight]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

My proposal accepts the woman’s right to exercise control over her own body, only to the extent that nature allows.

That’s the same nature where mothers regularly eat their young, right?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

There is no definition of “nature” that makes your post make the least bit of sense. Human beings either are a part of nature, in which case so is Nonoxynol 9, or else we’re not, in which case a peach-pit-diaphragm isn’t natural, either…

Are you serious ? If so, your post is a load of rubbish.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Cat_Fight

That’s the same nature where mothers regularly eat their young, right?

I’m not familiar with that nature. Care to enlighten me?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Are you serious ? If so, your post is a load of rubbish.

Deadly serious. This is college freshman stuff. I say so because I wrote a paper on it as a freshman in college. Seriously, how can you possibly define “nature” such that a peach pit diaphragm is natural, but nonoxynol 9 isn’t?

Here’s a place to start looking for a relevant definition.

[Freudian_Slit]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

I’m not familiar with that nature. Care to enlighten me?

You can’t really compare humans to animals in nature. They do all kinds of things that we don’t, and vice versa. Saying that a female animal has no access to contraceptive so women without birth control are in the same boat as them makes as much sense as saying that animals in the wild don’t have access to medicine/doctors. What difference does it make?

[Cat_Fight]

Nature’s Worst Moms, care of National Geographic.

I fail to see the line between nature and technology in your proposal. How well-known or processed must an abortifacient be to qualify as unnatural?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

I’m not familiar with that nature. Care to enlighten me?

gladly.

Some mother hawks and owls are practical optimists, not only halving their brood when necessary but also eating them.

“Cannibalizing the victim serves the dual function of providing a timely meal and ensuring that there is one less mouth to feed,” Dr. Forbes, the University of Winnipeg biologist, writes in his new book, “A Natural History of Families.”

A hungry mother can be the stuff of nightmares — especially if it is the mother next door. Chimpanzees are exemplary mothers when it comes to caring for their own, said Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, a primatologist and the author of “Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants and Natural Selection.”

Unlike humans, Dr. Hrdy said, the apes never abandon or reject their young, no matter how diseased or crippled a baby may be. Yet because female chimpanzees live in troops with other nonrelated females, a ravenous, lactating mother feels little compunction about killing and eating the child of a group mate. “It’s a good way to get lipids,” Dr. Hrdy said.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Deadly serious. This is college freshman stuff. I say so because I wrote a paper on it as a freshman in college.

You wrote a paper on the definition of “natural” ? Colour me impressed :rolleyes:

Seriously, how can you possibly define “nature” such that a peach pit diaphragm is natural, but nonoxynol 9 isn’t?

Here’s a place to start looking for a relevant definition.

From Wikipedia

Nonoxynols or nonylphenol ethoxylates are nonionic surfactant mixtures varying in the number of repeating ethoxy groups. They are used as detergents, emulsifiers, wetting agents, defoaming agents, etc. nonoxynol-9, the compound with 9 repeating ethoxy groups, is a spermatocide, formulated primarily as a component of vaginal foams and creams.
synthesis
These compounds are synthesised by alkylation of phenol by a trimer of propene (propylene) under the influence of an acidic catalyst.

Definition of Synthetic

1. of, pertaining to, proceeding by, or involving synthesis (opposed to analytic ).
2. noting or pertaining to compounds formed through a chemical process by human agency, as opposed to those of natural origin: synthetic vitamins; synthetic fiber.

-bolding mine

How much did you pay for your first year of college?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Got more bang for my buck than some people, I’ll wager, since I was asking for a definition of “nature” that makes your post make any sense.

I suppose I should let this drop, because even if you came up with one, it’d almost certainly be a complete non sequitur. Who gives a shit about the level of technology involved in a method of contraception–what does that have to do with anything whatsoever?

[Der_Trihs]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Who gives a shit about the level of technology involved in a method of contraception–what does that have to do with anything whatsoever?

The old “natural = moral” bit I expect. Which falls apart the moment you take a good look at nature.

[begbert2]

Hello! I’m back. Had a lovely weekend, thanks for asking. Now, to business:

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The president is catching some flak for the conditions at the camps. She calls you into her office. “Look,” she says. “I’m busy. I don’t especially like what’s happening–but the survival of our species is my main concern. If you can submit a program to me, an alternative to the Tyson-Schlafly Plan, I’ll put you in charge of the program. The one non-negotiable is that your proposal must require all able-bodied Americans to get pregnant and to do what they can to complete the pregnancy with live birth.”

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Sure. Let’s look at another scenario in which one sex’s autonomy over their own bodies is taken away–in a more extreme fashion–in order to protect a society: war. Specifically, my proposal would be modeled after the World War II-era draft.

Women of childbearing age would be encouraged with propaganda and large financial incentives to enlist in the effort. Those who didn’t enlist would receive similar benefits when drafted. The government would work to create a social perception that the people participating in this effort were the great heroes of the age, figures on whom we should all model our characters; hopefully they’d dominate the next generation’s political leadership, in recognition of their sacrifice for the species. There’d be decent pay for participants in this full-time occupation, lifetime medical benefits, and some sort of major educational bill associated with it also. Some sort of limited conscientious objector status would be available, if at all possible. If not, there’d be prison time for women who refused to participate.

Women who didn’t have a particular male in mind as the father would have a variety of options: artificial insemination, one-night stands with their choice of a harem of gigolos, one-night stands with freelancers. Childcare would be completely paid for at all levels, as would prenatal care.

In short, society would re-engineer itself to recognize the sacrifice the women were making, would sacrifice many luxuries on their behalf, just as we did for the men whose autonomy was taken from them when they were forced to fight and risk death in World War II.

That’s the alternate scenario to the rape pits. And if you’d (the general you’d, not you jsgoddess’d) doom your sister to the rape pits because you were unwilling to see a difference between them and a OB-GI bill, I’m not sure you’re in a position to call anyone else a monster.

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Given the dire circumstances for the entire human race, the only species with a hope in hell of saving other species, If I was the supreme leader I’d make it a crime punishable by death to assist you in securing contraception or abortion.

Dutchman’s response fails to satisfy they hypothetical because it doesn’t require all women to get pregnant.

LHoD’s hypothetical does meet the minimum requirement of “requiring” all women to have babies, with jail time as a penalty. Of course, we also “require” all people to eschew illegal drugs. How’s that working out for ya?

I admit that when I wrote my hypothetical I assumed the president would want a solution that would actually work, without realizing that I could satisfy it by saying, “We’re going to replace the rape pits with a public statement by the lady president that all women are required to have babies (with no penalty whatsoever attached to noncompliance)”. That would have satisfied the hypothetical while completely dodging and subverting it.

Why do I mention it? Because depending on the stubbornness of the women, the answers by LHoD are dodging it too. We don’t know why the women in this theoretical society have en masse reversed their natural inclination to have children; we merely know that they have. Can they be bribed to change their minds? Can they be encouraged by peer pressure? Can they be persuaded to comply by threats of prison or death?

Maybe they can. Maybe only some of them can. Maybe none of them can. Who knows, maybe the women will be smart enough to notice that you can’t imprison all of them, and so decide to openly spurn you, the way the copyright-breakers do. Maybe they’ll make the women you imprison into heroes, lauding them for their bravery in riding at the front of the bus. Perhaps they’ll even all stand up to you, chins thrust out, as you open fire on their demonstrations and parades.

What happens then? What if they don’t respond to the carrot, and don’t respond to the stick? And what if, in the absence of legal contraception and abortion, they decide to go underground, or back alley?
Oh, and speaking of back alley, this peach pit contraception garbage is retarded. It’s just forcing people into unsafe methods of contraception over safe ones. having yourself punched in the stomach to kill the fetus is “natural” approach too; would you allow “natural” abortion clinics which consist of burly guys who punch wombs on request? Bah - nature is barbaric, and this “natural contraception/abortion” is nothing but barbarism itself.

[AHunter3]

I’m trying to remember the name of that little play in Gornick & Moran’s 1971 Woman in Sexist Society, the one where the guy wakes up and is informed that while under anesthesia a fertilized ovum has been given opportunity to latch onto the blood supply in his peritoneal cavity. Yep, you’re pregnant, mister. What’s that? Oh of course we could “do something” about that. But it wouldn’t be…ethical, you know?

Hey, it’s just for 9 months.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@AHunter3

I’m trying to remember the name of that little play in Gornick & Moran’s 1971 Woman in Sexist Society, the one where the guy wakes up and is informed that while under anesthesia a fertilized ovum has been given opportunity to latch onto the blood supply in his peritoneal cavity. Yep, you’re pregnant, mister. What’s that? Oh of course we could “do something” about that. But it wouldn’t be…ethical, you know?

Hey, it’s just for 9 months.

On the off chance that it’s not clear, if this technology were available, I’d be 100% behind using it in this instance.

begbert, the hypothetical is simply too unclear to be useful. What circumstances threaten humanity, and what level of reproduction is necessary to prevent the mass horrifying die-off, and what level of reproduction will occur voluntarily? Without pinning down these three details, I think further discussion of the hypothetical is useless, as your post points out.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@begbert2

Oh, and speaking of back alley, this peach pit contraception garbage is retarded. It’s just forcing people into unsafe methods of contraception over safe ones. having yourself punched in the stomach to kill the fetus is “natural” approach too; would you allow “natural” abortion clinics which consist of burly guys who punch wombs on request? Bah - nature is barbaric, and this “natural contraception/abortion” is nothing but barbarism itself.

To respond to this: I’d agree with such a proposal only if the proposer were proposing it naturally–that is, without using modern language, not wearing clothes during the proposal, and absolutely not employing any technology more advanced than a peach pit either in making or enforcing the proposal.

If some random asshole starts punching non-pregnant women, though, I’d be okay with someone shooting him.

[begbert2]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

begbert, the hypothetical is simply too unclear to be useful. What circumstances threaten humanity, and what level of reproduction is necessary to prevent the mass horrifying die-off, and what level of reproduction will occur voluntarily? Without pinning down these three details, I think further discussion of the hypothetical is useless, as your post points out.

The hypothetical was clearly intended to push pro-choicers into a position of either admitting that their morality is situational, or forcing them to defend the “absurd”*. (Presumably situational morality is something bad.) Basically it was just a gotcha - I seriously doubt that there was any thought given to the actual implications of the scenario being presented.

• by “absurd”, we mean “better that the human race should die out than that one woman be denied an abortion”. Oddly, the responses ran from preemptively rejecting that this is absurd by undermining the value of the human race, to delving deep into the implications of the hypothetical, rather than anybody saying, “Why, you’re right! Abortions aren’t so important after all! Let’s ban them even without the disaster!” Funny how that turned out, eh?