> Yes, you call it fundamental which goes right back to that it only holders water if one considers reproduction a higher goal that all must aspire to.
Reproduction is a fundamental function of your organism, whether you chose to use it or not (for example, I am not going to reproduce). Any entity forcefully removing your body's ability to perform any of its fundamental functions is obviously abhorrent. If the state were seeking to remove your ability to see or your ability to consume food or excrete it, would you find that a matter of definitions?
By contrast, male circumcision and teeth straitghening are essentially cosmetic differences. Male circumcision is more problematic (and it is certainly not considered anywhere close to normal in most of the world), but even there the harm is minimal - being able to cover one's glans with one's foreskin is not a significant ability that anyone could claim has a significant effect on their life (of course, the risks of complications associated with the procedure itself are a different matter).
> I've noticed that he moral queasiness of sterilization of the male seems to be quite a bit lower than with sterilization of the female
I have no idea where you have seen this. I haven't even seen the sex or gender of the person being potentially sterilized discussed at all in any discussion of the horror of forced sterilization. Certainly nowhere in this thread or even the deleted tweet.
Overall, you seem to want to either make some kind of eugenic argument for forced sterilization (which I consider so abhorrent it's not even worth arguing against), OR some kind of strange more-liberal-than-thou argument that reproduction shouldn't be given some special place (which no one is, it's just that reproduction is the ONLY function of the body that anyone seems to think it might be ok to take from you for some strange reason - it isn't, anymore than gouging your eyes or removing your inner ear would be).
> Reproduction is a fundamental function of your organism, whether you chose to use it or not (for example, I am not going to reproduce). Any entity forcefully removing your body's ability to perform any of its fundamental functions is obviously abhorrent. If the state were seeking to remove your ability to see or your ability to consume food or excrete it, would you find that a matter of definitions?
And what test or criteria might you use to decide what is and isn't a “fundamental function of one's organism”?
> By contrast, male circumcision and teeth straitghening are essentially cosmetic differences.
It is not so much the result of both that I find problematic as the painful methodology by which they are achieved.
Cutting up a man sans any anæsthesia, sewing him back up, and leaving him otherwise alive but with a scar is also merely cosmetic; it was, however, rather painful for him.
> I have no idea where you have seen this. I haven't even seen the sex or gender of the person being potentially sterilized discussed at all in any discussion of the horror of forced sterilization. Certainly nowhere in this thread or even the deleted tweet.
It has been well discussed and noted that physicians seem to be far more willing to perform elective sterilizations on males than on females and find some kind of greater moral fault with the latter than the former.
> it isn't, anymore than gouging your eyes or removing your inner ear would be).
And I would submit that most, if not nigh all human beings when given the dilemma of either surrendering their reproductive capacity or an eye, would surely pick the former.
It's telling that human beings willingly surrender their reproductive capacity all the time, but I have seldom heard of a man who decided to have a healthy eye removed simply because he wanted himself rid of it.
So yes, I consider removing a man's reproductive capacity to be quite trivial and inconsequential compared to removing his eye.
> It is not so much the result of both that I find problematic as the painful methodology by which they are achieved.
Sure, that is something to discuss. In the case of teeth, most parents in most of the world only have their children go through procedures that are likely to be important for their health (even if the child may not like the procedure). Male circumcision is also not something I condone personally, and it is relatively rare in most of the world outside some ethnic/religious groups.
> It has been well discussed and noted that physicians seem to be far more willing to perform elective sterilizations on males than on females and find some kind of greater moral fault with the latter than the former.
We are discussing forced sterilization here in general. When you are talking about male elective sterilization, do you mean vasectomy? Because then, one reason why surgeons may be more willing to go through with it is because it is (at least theoretically) reversible, so it constitutes a smaller decision than surgical female sterilization, which is always definitive.
It is also true that historically doctors have felt far more entitled to make decisions for women's bodies than for men's, so I do expect that this shamefully persists.
> So yes, I consider removing a man's reproductive capacity to be quite trivial and inconsequential compared to removing his eye.
> Which of both would you choose?
This is not about choice - that is the whole point. The population we are talking about is not given any choice - the state is deciding to change the way their body works, against their own interests.
Even more importantly, while taking away someone's reproductive capacity may be a smaller apparent harm than taking away their eyes, it is a much, much worse harm over the long term of the community. Literally destroying the Family as a core part of their community is going to destroy their old age, and it is an explicit attack on their culture.
> It's telling that human beings willingly surrender their reproductive capacity all the time, but I have seldom heard of a man who decided to have a healthy eye removed simply because he wanted himself rid of it.
You will find very, very few human beings permanently surrender their reproductive capacity willingly EXCEPT for those who are essentially finished with it - people with at least one, but likely several children. True, there are likely slightly more people who willingly permanently give up their reproductive capacity than people who have an eye removed, but the reason is also obvious: there is absolutely nothing to gain from having an eye removed, while giving up your reproductive capacity allows you to have unprotected sex without the possibility of expensive, hard to care for children.
> And what test or criteria might you use to decide what is and isn't a “fundamental function of one's organism”?
There are many ways to come up with a definition that will include reproduction but not include crooked teeth or the foreskin. In fact, reproduction is so fundamental that we usually define life as being primarily related to reproduction - that is, any chemical substance that can simply reproduce itself is usually at least a candidate for being considered a form of life (the minimalist definition is just a fixed physical form and reproduction + heredity).
So while many functions of a living organism are more or less "fundamental", reproduction is almost the only one you can't debate away.
Now, if looking strictly at one individual organism, it is true that reproduction becomes much less fundamental, so I am assuming that this is the angle you are thinking from. But I don't think this is the right way of looking at it when considering whether a medical procedure could be justly forced on an entire population.
> I don't find it [sex] a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction
Excellent point; thanks for the insight.
> My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction.
While society does have interests in many aspects of reproduction, I think those are greatly outweighed by fundamental liberty and the sanctity of your own person. As an important principle (not an absolutist rule, of course), we shouldn't tell people, including women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Also, governments have a dangerous track record with such policies. They've resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions, for example, and ethnic and religious discrimination.
> It's a biological imperative to do so (i.e., we think we have a choice, but in fact have much less than we think we do).
I chose to get a vasectomy. I'm 35 and have never in my life desired reproducing. I do not feel that supposed biological imperative.
I do feel the imperative to have sex, but having sex and producing babies are entirely different things. You can have one without the other.
> To help you understand how absurd your position is, consider if even one of the hundreds of thousands of reproduction "decisions" that are in your line had not been made, you wouldn't be here to express your point of view that it's "just a personal choice."
They are also all irrelevant. We don’t force parents to donate organs for life-saving transplants; why would we have a different rule specifically for uterus?
Worth pointing out you’re comparing the idea of bodily autonomy, one of basic human rights, with eugenics, because it opposes a certain religious superstition.
> First, that anyone not agreeing with your position is actually and demonstrably ideologically motivated. I
I said that the people who were doing were demonstrably ideologically motivated. This is because it is true and evidenced. This has nothing to do with how I feel.
> Am I wrong to be concerned about and disapproving of the practice of female genital mutilation in parts of the world?
Is FGM a medically accepted practice? No? Then it has no relevance to this discussion.
> At some point, the line between well-meaning non-judgmentalism and craven indifference is blurred.
This is ideologically motivated people advocating that politicians and laypeople legislate medical decision making that should be between a doctor and his patient and their guardians. Whatever else is drummed up by comparing it to barbaric practices ask yourself this: would you want a politician telling you what is medically appropriate for your child?
> I'm saying maybe it's as ethical as current medical science, as long as you sterilize them
This is eugenics. You are the one that brought it up saying maybe it's relatively ethical. I'm rejecting that point and saying that it categorically is not ethical.
> Think about what you're saying. Why would anyone want to promote a particular surgery?
That’s obvious - the good faith interpretation is that they believe that people have bodies that don’t match their gender and that having surgery sooner will spare them from suffering than having it later.
> The movement is for individual freedom and for the government to stay out of people's medical decisions.
No it isn’t. The movement is about denying parents the right to make medical decisions for their children.
> Will it increase the number of those surgeries for adults if the government stops discouraging them? Maybe, maybe not.
This is a non-sequitur.
> The point is that there is no "public interest" in what genitalia someone needs to have according to (again) their doctors.
There is public interest in protecting children from people who would encourage them to have irreversible surgery that renders them sterile when there is no evidence that this is medically necessary.
> The point is that there is no "public interest" in what genitalia someone needs to have according to (again) their doctors.
Why are doctors deciding that minors with healthy genitalia need to have them surgically altered?
> from the perspective of biology, and as a critical asset in the development of the human race (especially during times of high child mortality)
There are many things that may be true from the perspective of biology, but we collectively as a humanity choose to ignore or fight them. I think most people will disagree with the opinion that reproduction is the only goal of human life. Because that's it - an opinion (that you seem to share).
For example, there are many people of both sexes that consciously decide not to have children. In this context, reducing women (and women only) to "literally baby machines" is not really logically defensible in my opinion. Unless I misunderstood your point?
>having a functional uterus has no bearing on whether you're the one who is considering an abortion.
I'm not sure how you can make that statement seriously. The only situation where one might want or need to consider terminating a pregnancy is if you have a functional female reproductive system.
Each individual should make those decisions for themselves without a bunch of busybodies telling them what they should do with their own bodies.
As for potential fathers and medical professionals, their opinions may be useful to the person considering such a procedure, but it isn't their body and, as such, that's an advisory situation at most.
>And the other reply also interpreted you as saying men shouldn't comment on the issue and went uncorrected.
Which doesn't make a lot of sense, since I (as a male) was, in fact, commenting on the issue. Or did you miss that part?
People should absolutely be able to express their opinions.
However, when it comes to a specific person considering a specific procedure (whether that be a pregnancy termination, a haircut or removal of a hangnail), the decision necessarily should be that of the specific person involved, and the opinions of others aren't at all relevant.
That's my point. If you can and/or do become pregnant, then the decision whether to terminate or not is yours alone -- but only for your own body.
If you don't have a functional female reproductive system, such decisions are irrelevant to you. If you do have a functional female reproductive system, how that system is used (or not) is completely up to the individual involved and no one should have any decision making power over how another person's body is used.
Feel free to disagree with my position and make your opinions clear. But when it comes to a specific person making a specific decision about their own body, you have no say unless it's your body.
>I misunderstood, but I think you could have been clearer.
That's entirely likely. I tried to elucidate my point. If I failed to do so, my apologies. I attempted to do so again in this comment. I hope I was clearer this time.
> This is a silly argument. Not reproducing during every ovulation and spermatogenesis cycle does the same.
This is actually, sort of, the point of view of many Christian organizations: sexuality is to be used for procreation only.
> Likewise in your argument, cutting someone that is braindead from life support could be depriving them.
The question is always about in which situations it is ethical to decide about the existence of another person. I'm quite optimistic humans won't ever achieve a consensus about this. Which is good - it means that we stay aware of those questions.
Sorry about high-roading here - my point was that also in this case the ethic questions are not trivial because facilitating brainlessness is an active act during a similar phase of a human's existence as abortion. Because of this, I'm positive that jurisdictions allowing abortion will eventually allow growing brainless humans.
>Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts.
I do not think it is comparable to organ donation. I do think you are required to provide the basic necessities, but are not obligated to go beyond. Due to our limitations with artificial wombs and fetus transplants it is not possible to provide the basics without carrying the pregnancy.
>All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above.
Those are not the same branch of the same religion. It is mighty convenient that you left off all the other branches along with different religions I mentioned.
>What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies.
I don't really care if you are PC in general. HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place. Bigotry like what you spewed isn't in keeping with the guidelines.
>You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights.
If you can't stop bringing up religion there is no point in continuing. This has nothing to do with religion. There is good biological evidence life starts at conception.
Here are some resources which contain biologists and biology text books.
>Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't
Toddlers don't have fully formed minds. They only have a minimal level of sentience and consciousness. I am concluding that toddlers are not humans. Great reasoning there.
>Well, sexual reproduction was invented by rather primitive organisms around two billion years ago, but evolution hasn't stood still since then.
I didn't say otherwise.
>If you think things like pleasure are mere beneficial side effects, you don't understand much about people either singly or in groups (how do you explain married couples who choose to remain childless?).
I don't get what you mean? People can attempt to separate sex from procreation and take steps to try and stop it from happening. I didn't say otherwise.
>You might look into bonobo chimpanzees, for whom sex has an even more central social role than for humans.
Nothing you are saying contradicts what I am saying.
I think you are getting things backwards. The reason why sex is pleasurable or increases social standing or whatever else is to encourage procreation. Sex did not come about for pleasure but for procreation.
>Many conservatives would agree with you, but many of those would then start defining rape very restrictively
Since you can see the future can you tell me the winning lotto numbers?
>Hmm. I'm not sure what blood type has to do with it, and you've somewhat sidestepped the issue of when you think a fertilized egg becomes a human
Some people deny that a fetus is a distinct individual from the mother. No different than a tumor. A different blood type shows it is different than a tumor. A human doesn't have two different blood types.
> You just use the term "fetus".
Correct. I will sometimes use baby, but it can be ambiguous for people who deny a fetus is a baby. Using fetus makes it clear we are talking about a preborn baby. I think it can have a dehumanizing effect so I am not a huge fan of it though.
>Do you believe a fertilized egg immediately becomes a human deserving of rights, or is there some additional grace period or precondition such as successful implantation into the wall of the uterus?
I believe at conception it is a distinct human which should have all human rights. I don't think the location or size of the human determines if a human is a human.
>I was more thinking that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to forbid abortion if they don't allow comprehensive sex-ed, rather than preconditioning abortion on the lack of it.:-/
I think you are generalizing conservatives. In the US you have an option of proabortion with sex ed or antiabortion without sex end. I would also say that if you talked about the basics and didn't go to far, like what happens in the same places you would have support from the majority of conservatives. I think the majority of conservatives just don't trust the government to handle this properly.
>What do you think of medically preventing fertilization
That is not abortion. I think the majority of prolifers have no issues with it.
>preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (eg. hormones such as Levonorgestrel, also known as Plan-B)?
> A child of rape has the same rights as someone who isn't a child of rape, but rape is still unethical
Cute, but irrelevant. Please tell me how something not too different from in-vitro fertilization is comparable to someone forcing themselves onto another person and giving them PTSD.
> The equality of the rights granted to a person who is a product of an act indicate nothing about the ethics of the act.
I'll clarify: Combining inanimate objects in a way that leads to the birth of a child, who has the same rights, is not unethical. Sexual reproduction utilizes biological pathways to achieve the exact same result. Why is an "artificial" (whatever that means) pathway unethical, exactly?
> You either have bodily autonomy (My body, my choice!)
You don't think there's any situations where the state (in its role of protecting society) might be ok overriding someone's bodily autonomy? That would preclude any vaccinations, prisons, etc., no?
> But I'd also much rather have constitutional protections that don't allow governments to declare consensual surgical procedures on your own body to be illegal.
Interesting concept, but a few quick thoughts on this.
1) I'd only point out that there exists a point of view that that says that a baby's body is a separate life from a woman's body.
2) Such a constitutional protection would open up some very complicated issues when it comes to children, particularly with regards to sexuality.
3) Many of the same people who very eloquently speak out on personal choice in some medical matters "lost the plot" during Covid. Who can credibly make this argument and advocate for such a policy credibly?
Reproduction is a fundamental function of your organism, whether you chose to use it or not (for example, I am not going to reproduce). Any entity forcefully removing your body's ability to perform any of its fundamental functions is obviously abhorrent. If the state were seeking to remove your ability to see or your ability to consume food or excrete it, would you find that a matter of definitions?
By contrast, male circumcision and teeth straitghening are essentially cosmetic differences. Male circumcision is more problematic (and it is certainly not considered anywhere close to normal in most of the world), but even there the harm is minimal - being able to cover one's glans with one's foreskin is not a significant ability that anyone could claim has a significant effect on their life (of course, the risks of complications associated with the procedure itself are a different matter).
> I've noticed that he moral queasiness of sterilization of the male seems to be quite a bit lower than with sterilization of the female
I have no idea where you have seen this. I haven't even seen the sex or gender of the person being potentially sterilized discussed at all in any discussion of the horror of forced sterilization. Certainly nowhere in this thread or even the deleted tweet.
Overall, you seem to want to either make some kind of eugenic argument for forced sterilization (which I consider so abhorrent it's not even worth arguing against), OR some kind of strange more-liberal-than-thou argument that reproduction shouldn't be given some special place (which no one is, it's just that reproduction is the ONLY function of the body that anyone seems to think it might be ok to take from you for some strange reason - it isn't, anymore than gouging your eyes or removing your inner ear would be).
reply