Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MadocComadrin]

Hah, it's not a natural consequence of abortion... it's a natural consequence of sexism and assumptions of binary gender

Assumptions of binary gender has nothing to do with it: any expressed physical or mental trait could be called into favoritism. Likewise, it is still a consequence of easy-to-obtain abortion, as it is the gateway to the issue.

[GlyphGryph]

And I don't actually have a problem with it in the slightest, assuming they are aborting early, if truth be told. :/

[Vector]

What I'm saying is that what "one of each" means is largely based on sexism.

[G-Flex]

And I don't actually have a problem with it in the slightest, assuming they are aborting early, if truth be told. :/

There's a huge can of ethical worms there. What traits should people be able to select for when having children? How much should we allow what amounts to eugenics on part of the parents?

What I'm saying is that what "one of each" means is largely based on sexism.

Er... to some degree, maybe, but sexual dimorphism isn't exactly going away. Granted, people caring so much about it, and gender roles related to it are another story.

[Vector]

Right, that's what I mean.  I'm saying that what we've chosen as our "one of each" is based on a preoccupation with sex and gender roles, and has a great deal of assumption tied into it about the relationships between biological sex and behavior.

For example, you can't exactly say "one of each" if you have any understanding of trans* issues.  There's a lot of inherent assumptions about what you're going to end up with.

[MadocComadrin]

What I'm saying is that what "one of each" means is largely based on sexism.

No it's not. It's largely based on wanting to have some sort of weird eugenic collection. Generally, "filling a role" isn't considered sexist, at least in the negative manner. While having the babies until you get "one of each" is cold hearted (unless you're still going to love and care for the ones that didn't come out as the desired gender as much as the others), aborting due to having any expressed trait that isn't an extremely debilitating illness sets a very disturbing precedence (not that I'm for any type of abortion except in the case of guaranteed death of either the mother or the child).

[G-Flex]

For example, you can't exactly say "one of each" if you have any understanding of trans* issues.  There's a lot of inherent assumptions about what you're going to end up with.

Depends on what you mean by "one of each". If you just plain mean "one of each physical sex", then yeah, that's basically true, at least if your children don't wind up intersexual in some manner.

Generally, "filling a role" isn't considered sexist, at least in the negative manner.

Sure it is. Expecting someone to fulfill certain roles/obligations/responsibilities based on their physical sex is sexist.

[GlyphGryph]

There's a huge can of ethical worms there. What traits should people be able to select for when having children? How much should we allow what amounts to eugenics on part of the parents?

Whichever traits they want, assuming those traits aren't being sought specifically to cripple the child. Basically the same standards as "what can parents teach their children", in many ways.
As much as they want. While there are risks, I honestly don't see us being worse off at this point with a bit of prenatal eugenics. Centralized Eugenics MOVEMENTS are still inherently dangerous in a lot of ways, especially if they attempt to force the unwilling to follow their doctrines, but individual, parent level selective breeding is not something I have much of an issue with.

I pretty much fully support designer babies as a concept, I'm only against clearly abusive and harmful actions relating to it.

[Vector]

(not that I'm for any type of abortion except in the case of guaranteed death of either the mother or the child).

... So you think mothers should be forced to carry rape babies to term?

Hurm.  No wonder we aren't getting along right now.

[ChairmanPoo]

For example: Organ Donation. You can be a registered organ donor, you can have it in your will that you want your organs to be donated, and your family can STILL prevent them from being donated.

Yes, as it stands, being a registered organ donor doesn't matter much nowadays except insofar you might make it known to your family.

[MadocComadrin]

Sure it is. Expecting someone to fulfill certain roles/obligations/responsibilities based on their physical sex is sexist.

"At least not in a negative manner." The aren't choosing a sex based on the belief that one sex is inherently inferior, just for the sex itself. It's similar to choosing an actress: you aren't expected to hire a guy to play the role of a girl due to gender equality. They need that specific sex simply for the sex.

(not that I'm for any type of abortion except in the case of guaranteed death of either the mother or the child).

... So you think mothers should be forced to carry rape babies to term?

Hurm.  No wonder we aren't getting along right now.

Truth be told, I'm on the fence about that. Being an adopted, unwanted pregnancy, I've put a lot of thought into it. That idea of not existing just because a person is inconvenienced or burdened is actually quite frightening.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

(not that I'm for any type of abortion except in the case of guaranteed death of either the mother or the child).

... So you think mothers should be forced to carry rape babies to term?

Hurm.  No wonder we aren't getting along right now.

Truth be told, I'm on the fence about that. Being an adopted, unwanted pregnancy, I've put a lot of thought into it. That idea of not existing just because a person is inconvenienced or burdened is actually quite frightening.

Being forced against your will to carry to term the baby of someone who violated you in the most base way possible is somewhat more than being "Inconvenienced"

[GlyphGryph]

How is it any more frightening than not existing because your potential mother just really wasn't in the mood that night?

[G-Flex]

I pretty much fully support designer babies as a concept, I'm only against clearly abusive and harmful actions relating to it.

... You don't see the concept itself as abusive? Not only would it result in the upper classes (those who can afford such screening/treatments) to have a genetic leg up on the lower classes, you also run the very real risk of parents engaging in very prejudicial behavior in selecting which traits their children have. Parents are not geneticists, do not understand the issues involved, and should not be allowed to choose the genetics of their children, considering the potentially very difficult to solve ramifications.

"At least not in a negative manner." The aren't choosing a sex based on the belief that one sex is inherently inferior, just for the sex itself. It's similar to choosing an actress: you aren't expected to hire a guy to play the role of a girl due to gender equality. They need that specific sex simply for the sex.

You don't have to believe one sex is inferior to the other to be sexist, and expecting anyone to subscribe to specified roles based solely on what private parts are attached to them is going to have starkly negative consequences. There is no such thing as strictly positive or even neutral sexism.

Truth be told, I'm on the fence about that. Being an adopted, unwanted pregnancy, I've put a lot of thought into it. That idea of not existing just because a person is inconvenienced or burdened is actually quite frightening.

Allow me to draw an analogy: You could say exactly the same thing about birth control or anything else that prevents conception/childbirth. The idea of not existing because my dad decided to wear a condom is pretty frightening to, but only on a personal existential level and not in a way that should actually affect my opinions about anything.

[MadocComadrin]

You don't have to believe one sex is inferior to the other to be sexist, and expecting anyone to subscribe to specified roles based solely on what private parts are attached to them is going to have starkly negative consequences. There is no such thing as strictly positive or even neutral sexism.

That's simply not true. The example I pointed out is one form of neutral sexism.

Allow me to draw an analogy: You could say exactly the same thing about birth control or anything else that prevents conception/childbirth. The idea of not existing because my dad decided to wear a condom is pretty frightening to, but only on a personal existential level and not in a way that should actually affect my opinions about anything.

And I'm not personally against contraception. After conception, you're already on track to being a fully-fledged human being: that's what makes the difference to me. It fits my definition of human life.