Author Topic: Are social conservatives always wrong?  (Read 24947 times)

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #100 on: June 21, 2019, 02:09:40 PM »
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.

As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?

The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.

What are acceptable reasons for a woman to lose autonomy over her own body and be forced into childbearing?

I am a white, heterosexual man and I have been told that I am not to have an opinion on this. This is for women and the LGBT community to figure out.

Also what happens if a thousand women make this choice? Are minority communities to be at the mercy of another? Is a tool of liberation also a tool of oppression? It's gonna be a weird world to live in.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #101 on: June 21, 2019, 02:28:33 PM »
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.

As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?

The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.

What are acceptable reasons for a woman to lose autonomy over her own body and be forced into childbearing?

I am a white, heterosexual man and I have been told that I am not to have an opinion on this. This is for women and the LGBT community to figure out.

Also what happens if a thousand women make this choice? Are minority communities to be at the mercy of another? Is a tool of liberation also a tool of oppression? It's gonna be a weird world to live in.

I'm also white and heterosexual . . . and have opinions on it.  Naturally, my opinion should matter an awful lot less than that of the people who will actually have their lives impacted.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #102 on: June 21, 2019, 02:50:32 PM »
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.

As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?

The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.

What are acceptable reasons for a woman to lose autonomy over her own body and be forced into childbearing?

I am a white, heterosexual man and I have been told that I am not to have an opinion on this. This is for women and the LGBT community to figure out.

Also what happens if a thousand women make this choice? Are minority communities to be at the mercy of another? Is a tool of liberation also a tool of oppression? It's gonna be a weird world to live in.

I'm also white and heterosexual . . . and have opinions on it.  Naturally, my opinion should matter an awful lot less than that of the people who will actually have their lives impacted.

The worry was that if enough women decide they don't want homosexual or transgender children then those populations would begin declining. If they are in decline then there would be less worry about making sure their rights are protected.

Personally Abortion is a tool to be used responsibly. This is just a scenario that may unfold as a consequence of allowing abortion.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #103 on: June 21, 2019, 07:20:06 PM »
Right.  If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.

But those are pretty big ifs.

First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists.  From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners.  Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay.  (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found.  Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay.  It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)

Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait.  If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing.  I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended.  Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #104 on: June 21, 2019, 10:15:06 PM »
Right.  If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.

But those are pretty big ifs.

First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists.  From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners.  Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay.  (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found.  Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay.  It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)

Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait.  If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing.  I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended.  Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.

Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."

To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.

A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606)  So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.

And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)

(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )

From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #105 on: June 22, 2019, 03:24:07 AM »
I think we should do everything we can to encourage abortion.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #106 on: June 22, 2019, 04:57:29 AM »
Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?

Everyone?  I don't think that many people will argue that children that parents don't want are all that great for society.

Um, I was adopted by parents who wanted another child.  It's not easy, but it is a decent option.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #107 on: June 22, 2019, 05:01:24 AM »
Right.  If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.

But those are pretty big ifs.

First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists.  From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners.  Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay.  (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found.  Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay.  It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)

Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait.  If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing.  I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended.  Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.

Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."

To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.

A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606)  So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.

And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)

(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )

From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"

If artificial wombs are a real and readily available thing, then there shouldn't be cause for abortion any more should there?  I mean, the main reason for supporting a woman's right to abortion is that otherwise you force her to become an unwilling incubator for the term of the pregnancy.  The artificial womb scenario means we can just remove an undeveloped fetus and then allow it to develop without infringing on anyone's rights.

If you value women primarily as an incubator, then yes . . . I guess the case could be made that artificial wombs would radically devalue all the women in your life.  I don't believe that this belief system is true for the majority of people though.  From my experiences the people who tend to hold these views are social conservatives (often with a religious bent).

As far as 'designer children' . . . there exists no evidence that it will ever be possible to prevent all types if mental breakdown - or even that this would be desirable.  There's a very strong link between creativity and mental illness (it's rather shocking how many great artists have exhibited sights of mental illness) for example.  Do you believe that parents will give up the chance to have a creative child for the possibility of preventing mental illness?  As far as defective development goes, artificial insemination going on today already culls defective embryos (and perfectly good embryos when there are too many developing) and there doesn't seem to be too much concern over the practice.

I like this Gattaca style sci-fi thought experiment direction we're heading in.  There will always be new questions that need to be answered morally as our world changes.  I'm not sure that imagining hypothetical situations to 'prove' problems with social liberalism is likely to make much sense though.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #108 on: June 22, 2019, 05:07:25 AM »
Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?

Everyone?  I don't think that many people will argue that children that parents don't want are all that great for society.

Um, I was adopted by parents who wanted another child.  It's not easy, but it is a decent option.

You were adopted!  Adopted by parents who certainly wanted you (as mentioned).  I was referring to the unwanted children that parents are forced (by various societal methods of control) into raising against their wishes/desires.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #109 on: June 22, 2019, 05:27:06 AM »
I wonder where adoption gets placed on your scale of socially liberal - socially conservative.  The thing is that it's rarely chosen by mothers post Roe v Wade, mothers either keep their child or abort.  So adoption is a strange, likely suboptimal thing yet sometimes it works.  Having met my birth mother and her family, I would estimate that it tends to work better for the children than the families who place the child, although the children have emotional struggles of loss as well.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #110 on: June 22, 2019, 05:30:41 AM »
re: artificial wombs -- will women want it?  Or will women want the natural experience of pregnancy and childbirth?

Some women might want to do without, particularly if they are appearance-motivated, but I'd bet that most women now would choose a natural pregnancy unless they are marketed away from it as being undesirable.

Then of course with an artificial womb, can't anyone buy a child?  As an adoptee, I have feelings about having been bought an paid for (my price was $400, my adoptive parents saved the receipt).  Then the commercialism begins...
« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 05:33:01 AM by KBecks »

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11697
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #111 on: June 22, 2019, 05:36:45 AM »
re: artificial wombs -- will women want it?  Or will women want the natural experience of pregnancy and childbirth?

Some women might want to do without, particularly if they are appearance-motivated, but I'd bet that most women now would choose a natural pregnancy unless they are marketed away from it as being undesirable.


I would choose all the physical downsides of pregnancy when I could have a baby without them?   Seriously?  I still have side effects from DD and she is an adult now.

There is a lot of  discomfort (or maybe that is too mild a word) with IVF, so that might push women to body births.

BTW, this sort of looking at the future of reproductive technology is well covered in Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series.  She presents different societies using reproductive technology and genetic design for different societal goals.  All hidden in a series of space adventure.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #112 on: June 22, 2019, 05:56:27 AM »
Artificial womb babies won't be free, they will be for the rich only, at least until babies are mass-produced.  Perhaps factory-seconds will be available at the outlet.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11697
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #113 on: June 22, 2019, 06:38:09 AM »
Artificial womb babies won't be free, they will be for the rich only, at least until babies are mass-produced.  Perhaps factory-seconds will be available at the outlet.

As I said, LMB has looked at all of this, including introduction into a society where women are highly prized for reproduction (colonial planet, lots of terra forming,               prior low technology base due to isolation).                                       

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #114 on: June 22, 2019, 06:41:21 AM »
You're telling me I should read a sci-fi soap novel for the answers to modern society?

Malkynn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #115 on: June 22, 2019, 07:16:39 AM »
Some women might want to do without, particularly if they are appearance-motivated, but I'd bet that most women now would choose a natural pregnancy unless they are marketed away from it as being undesirable.

You haven't spent much time with pregnant women, have you...

"Appearance-motivated" as the main driver for not wanting to go through pregnancy?
Wow.

I mean, I can see incontinence-motivated, or vomit, heartburn, dangerous spikes in blood pressure, gestational diabetes, terrifying levels of water retention, back pain, hernias, separated abs, hair loss, bleeding gums, bad fucking moods, TEEEEAAAAARRRRRRRIIIIIING, oh, and legitimate risks to the safety of both mother and baby because shit can get real in there...fast...

Yeah, I can think of a few reasons that women might not choose "natural" that might register up there a little higher than appearance...

Let's not worry about all of those women who struggle with infertility or health issues that make pregnancy a terrible option even if we wanted it. It's not like there are many of us out there...
Oh wait...
Shit...
This is awkward...

I just...I just can't.
My severely scarred uterus and I are going to go have some morning wine now. It's not even 10 am here!!!
Gawd!

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #116 on: June 22, 2019, 07:35:31 AM »
Well, I've had three pregnancies so I have a little bit of experience with the subject. I am just not sure that it is something that most women would want to hire out.  It would be easy to market out of convenience though, that is for sure.

Pregnancy is very inconvenient.  Newborns are extremely inconvenient also.  Most small children are, yet many people love having children.

How will artificial wombs support breastfeeding? I just wonder.  Talk about inconvenience!
« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 07:44:04 AM by KBecks »

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11697
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #117 on: June 22, 2019, 07:39:15 AM »
You're telling me I should read a sci-fi soap novel for the answers to modern society?

No,  I am saying that if you want to know what some bright people have thought about the implications of all this on future societies, SF is well known for providing all sorts of futures.  And LMB is really good at the biology side of science and its effects on societies.  The Vorkosigan saga is space opera (and a side of transplanted Regency romance) on the surface, but there is lots of depth.  Hmm, I guess I am saying, go and read some good SF, it will definitely broaden your horizons.  After all, think of 1984 and Brave New World, they are classic SF.  But remember Sturgeon's Law.

Spoiler: show
She has uterine replicators used to return the fetal offspring of wartime rape to their fathers, she has uterine replicators for babies who can't survive in utero, she has uterine replicators for all sorts of designer babies and all sorts of social structures arising out of the separation of sex and babies.  She also looks at different societies' takes on reproduction and its control, from societies that need to severely control population all the way to societies who desperately need as many new people as possible.

The effects are cumulative as you go through the series.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 07:44:46 AM by RetiredAt63 »

Malkynn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #118 on: June 22, 2019, 07:39:30 AM »
Well, I've had three pregnancies so I have a little bit of experience with the subject. I am just not sure that it is something that most women would want to hire out.  It would be easy to market out of convenience though, that is for sure.

My mistake. I totally assumed you were a dude. I look like an ass now!

However, I maintain that many many of the women I know have quietly hated pregnancy and not felt comfortable being open about that. Combined with those of us with serious medical issues, I can think of many who would happily choose a safer option. 

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #119 on: June 22, 2019, 07:45:08 AM »
Yep. There are a lot of complications with being female, it's not easy. I think being a man is generally easier, at least physically easier.  This artificial womb stuff is just wild though.

For me, I am concerned about commodifying human life.  And I think that is likely social conservative thinking.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 07:48:01 AM by KBecks »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #120 on: June 22, 2019, 08:15:40 AM »
I once read an interesting book about surrogate mothers, people who so love the process of growing a baby that they volunteer to do it for other people.  There was a lot of discussion about how different women respond in different ways to pregnancy, with the majority finding it not only inconvenient and painful but generally horrible for all aspects of their lives.  But then there's this slim minority of women who genuinely love it, through some combination of genetics and social conditioning, who find it awakens their senses and alters the body and mind in ways that they then lament losing.

So I doubt artificial wombs will ever wholly replace natural childbirth.  At least some people will still do it the old fashioned way, as long as it's allowed.  Remember that the whole plot of Brave New World is based on the unexpected, and thus uncontrollable, natural birth of a person outside of the state's factory wombs.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #121 on: June 22, 2019, 09:51:57 AM »
Right.  If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.

But those are pretty big ifs.

First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists.  From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners.  Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay.  (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found.  Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay.  It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)

Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait.  If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing.  I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended.  Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.

Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."

To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.

A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606)  So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.

And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)

(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )

From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"

If artificial wombs are a real and readily available thing, then there shouldn't be cause for abortion any more should there?  I mean, the main reason for supporting a woman's right to abortion is that otherwise you force her to become an unwilling incubator for the term of the pregnancy.  The artificial womb scenario means we can just remove an undeveloped fetus and then allow it to develop without infringing on anyone's rights.

If you value women primarily as an incubator, then yes . . . I guess the case could be made that artificial wombs would radically devalue all the women in your life.  I don't believe that this belief system is true for the majority of people though.  From my experiences the people who tend to hold these views are social conservatives (often with a religious bent).

As far as 'designer children' . . . there exists no evidence that it will ever be possible to prevent all types if mental breakdown - or even that this would be desirable.  There's a very strong link between creativity and mental illness (it's rather shocking how many great artists have exhibited sights of mental illness) for example.  Do you believe that parents will give up the chance to have a creative child for the possibility of preventing mental illness?  As far as defective development goes, artificial insemination going on today already culls defective embryos (and perfectly good embryos when there are too many developing) and there doesn't seem to be too much concern over the practice.

I like this Gattaca style sci-fi thought experiment direction we're heading in.  There will always be new questions that need to be answered morally as our world changes.  I'm not sure that imagining hypothetical situations to 'prove' problems with social liberalism is likely to make much sense though.

"
overlapping “rights not to procreate.” First, there is a right not to be a gestational parent: That is, a woman has the right to stop gestating, or carrying a fetus to term. Second, there is a right not to be a legal parent: The law cannot force on a woman, against her wishes, the legal duties of parenthood. Finally, the right to have an abortion implies a right not to be a genetic parent — for there to be no child that comes into being that is her genetic offspring."
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/23/16186468/artificial-wombs-radically-transform-abortion-debate

Transferring the fetus out of the woman only solves the gestation part. If the fetus is viable what happens to the other 2?

We split atoms and went to the moon, figuring out DNA can't be any more difficult than those two things once humanity puts its mind to it.

If the woman has bad memories with mental illness I imagine she would sacrifice creativity to avoid mental illness.

I enjoy the thought experiment. Holding things as absolutes (such as a woman's right to choose) may turn out bad as our culture shifts and changes. As you point out the general term is towards greater individuality. The more power an individual has the more responsibility to use it properly.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #122 on: June 22, 2019, 11:35:54 AM »
Right.  If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.

But those are pretty big ifs.

First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists.  From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners.  Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay.  (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found.  Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay.  It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)

Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait.  If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing.  I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended.  Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.

Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."

To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.

A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606)  So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.

And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)

(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )

From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"

If artificial wombs are a real and readily available thing, then there shouldn't be cause for abortion any more should there?  I mean, the main reason for supporting a woman's right to abortion is that otherwise you force her to become an unwilling incubator for the term of the pregnancy.  The artificial womb scenario means we can just remove an undeveloped fetus and then allow it to develop without infringing on anyone's rights.

If you value women primarily as an incubator, then yes . . . I guess the case could be made that artificial wombs would radically devalue all the women in your life.  I don't believe that this belief system is true for the majority of people though.  From my experiences the people who tend to hold these views are social conservatives (often with a religious bent).

As far as 'designer children' . . . there exists no evidence that it will ever be possible to prevent all types if mental breakdown - or even that this would be desirable.  There's a very strong link between creativity and mental illness (it's rather shocking how many great artists have exhibited sights of mental illness) for example.  Do you believe that parents will give up the chance to have a creative child for the possibility of preventing mental illness?  As far as defective development goes, artificial insemination going on today already culls defective embryos (and perfectly good embryos when there are too many developing) and there doesn't seem to be too much concern over the practice.

I like this Gattaca style sci-fi thought experiment direction we're heading in.  There will always be new questions that need to be answered morally as our world changes.  I'm not sure that imagining hypothetical situations to 'prove' problems with social liberalism is likely to make much sense though.

"
overlapping “rights not to procreate.” First, there is a right not to be a gestational parent: That is, a woman has the right to stop gestating, or carrying a fetus to term. Second, there is a right not to be a legal parent: The law cannot force on a woman, against her wishes, the legal duties of parenthood. Finally, the right to have an abortion implies a right not to be a genetic parent — for there to be no child that comes into being that is her genetic offspring."
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/23/16186468/artificial-wombs-radically-transform-abortion-debate

Transferring the fetus out of the woman only solves the gestation part. If the fetus is viable what happens to the other 2?

We split atoms and went to the moon, figuring out DNA can't be any more difficult than those two things once humanity puts its mind to it.

If the woman has bad memories with mental illness I imagine she would sacrifice creativity to avoid mental illness.

I enjoy the thought experiment. Holding things as absolutes (such as a woman's right to choose) may turn out bad as our culture shifts and changes. As you point out the general term is towards greater individuality. The more power an individual has the more responsibility to use it properly.

Today if a woman gives birth, she's legally forced into responsibility for the child (unless she jumps through the legal hoops required for adoption).  This of course isn't a problem when an abortion takes place, but a child unwanted by the parent and birthed from an artificial womb to avoid abortion should be raised by the state until such time as it can be put up for adoption.  This should keep the pro-choice people happy (the woman gets her choice) and the pro-life people happy (the baby isn't aborted).  Unless the pro-life people merely want to force the child on the woman as a punishment for carnal sin.  But if that's the case - fuck them.  If they have a problem with paying for the children that they don't want to abort - well, that's kinda hypocritical isn't it?

I'd say that it's just as likely that a woman might choose the creativity/possible mental illness genes in the hopes that her child is the a superstar musician or poet.

I like your scientific optimism.  The drive to split atoms was to develop more efficient ways of killing people . . .  now it's impossible to build a new nuclear reactor.  We went to the moon, walked around, and can no longer do so . . . because people aren't interested in science.

FWIW, I've never held a woman's right to choose as an absolute.  It is a bad idea currently, let alone in a hypothetical future.  If a fetus is 9 months old, I don't think an abortion should be legal . . . and this is not a particularly unusual position to hold.

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1783
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #123 on: June 22, 2019, 12:03:26 PM »
We went to the moon to win a who's-strong-enough-to-kill-more-people pissing contest. Science was not enough then, let alone now.

We are pursuing more science in space now than ever before.

Radagast

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1589
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
  • One does not simply work into Mordor
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #124 on: June 22, 2019, 01:09:35 PM »
I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . .  slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.  and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc.

Despite the furor, social conservatives historically always lose in the end . . . but often they manage to cause a lot of pain and suffering before they finally do capitulate.  So what exactly is the draw to the movement?  What are it's long term goals?

I'll give it a shot :). One clear example is opposing communism. Lenin/Stalin/Maoism was one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity and they were right to oppose it at every turn. In fact I think they may not have gone far enough, and that is a result of living in, traveling through, and observing a number of communist and formerly communist countries.

Another point is that social conservatism is pretty much by definition mostly right, because pretty much all new ideas are bunk. Of course most never leave people's brains, most of the rest maybe get mentioned a few times, a handful get small group followings, but at some point people realize it was not actually that great an idea, with a low rate of exceptions. There are a few cases where they have been absurdly catastrophically wrong, but those are exaggerated by survivor bias (you never heard of the countless times they were right because those ideas never gained enough traction to get heard or remembered) and your strong personal bias.

I also have a theory that those who call themselves social conservatives are those who want to maximize their group's ability to win, which I will say has historically been equal to a group's population X productivity X social unity. Historically that has been pretty much the only winning strategy, and groups who did poorly at it disappeared. So they have mostly been right. On the other hand, always maximizing those is not necessarily good for individuals or for the species as a whole, which is where liberals in every society fit in emphasizing both individuality and collectivism.

Break your list into the three factors that maximize winning:
Maximize Population:
Oppose abortion
Oppose birth control
Oppose any sex except heterosexual sex
Minimal women's rights
Favor immigration of individuals with similar values or who could easily adopt similar values

Maximize Productivity:
Oppose recreational drugs and drunkenness
Favor capitalism, with some constraints
You didn't mention any, but historically productivity is proportional to energy expenditure so:
Maximixe oil production
Maximize cattle production (the highest energy form of sustenance)
Most and largest vehicles
Maximal industry
and others

Maximize Social Unity
Democracy may not do this (but it also may)
Oppose excessive civil rights
Oppose gays if they view themselves as fundamentally different to the group
Oppose interracial marriage
Oppose immigration by those who are very different
Oppose dissenting religions
Uniform clothing

Put those together and you can see that social conservatism is a highly effective strategy for a group to win. PopulationXproductivityXunity has been so successful for so long that it is deeply entrenched around the world.

I don't think slavery was conservative. It only really flourished in the New World where the European traditionalists wouldn't be disturbed. It could never have been done at scale within Europe because the populists would have burned the slaveowners at the stake for bringing in thousands of abjectly different foreigners to take their jobs for no pay. The conservative elite would have opposed it because a slave would never have been as efficient or innovative as a person getting paid would have been (lower productivity), and it introduced into society a large group of deeply resentful people with a very different culture (divided populace). It violated two of the three conservative objectives, in addition to the liberal ideals. Basically it was a terrible idea doomed to failure, and it is tragic that the social conservatives of the time didn't squish it before it started. Anybody who thinks slavery was a good idea is an idiot rather than a conservative.


PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1263
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #125 on: June 22, 2019, 03:30:12 PM »
We went to the moon to win a who's-strong-enough-to-kill-more-people pissing contest. Science was not enough then, let alone now.

There's some truth in that. But in the process we had a massive and coordinated push for science across society, including but not limited to microprocessor technology. Science was important, engineering was important, and not just for writing hookup apps.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #126 on: June 22, 2019, 04:59:14 PM »
Science was important, engineering was important, and not just for writing hookup apps.

Right!  You forgot boner pills and hair transplant technology, to form the trifecta of stupid shit that's apparently more important than space travel or artificial wombs.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #127 on: June 23, 2019, 05:31:32 AM »
Right.  If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.

But those are pretty big ifs.

First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists.  From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners.  Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay.  (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found.  Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay.  It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)

Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait.  If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing.  I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended.  Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.

Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."

To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.

A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606)  So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.

And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)

(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )

From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"

If artificial wombs are a real and readily available thing, then there shouldn't be cause for abortion any more should there?  I mean, the main reason for supporting a woman's right to abortion is that otherwise you force her to become an unwilling incubator for the term of the pregnancy.  The artificial womb scenario means we can just remove an undeveloped fetus and then allow it to develop without infringing on anyone's rights.

If you value women primarily as an incubator, then yes . . . I guess the case could be made that artificial wombs would radically devalue all the women in your life.  I don't believe that this belief system is true for the majority of people though.  From my experiences the people who tend to hold these views are social conservatives (often with a religious bent).

As far as 'designer children' . . . there exists no evidence that it will ever be possible to prevent all types if mental breakdown - or even that this would be desirable.  There's a very strong link between creativity and mental illness (it's rather shocking how many great artists have exhibited sights of mental illness) for example.  Do you believe that parents will give up the chance to have a creative child for the possibility of preventing mental illness?  As far as defective development goes, artificial insemination going on today already culls defective embryos (and perfectly good embryos when there are too many developing) and there doesn't seem to be too much concern over the practice.

I like this Gattaca style sci-fi thought experiment direction we're heading in.  There will always be new questions that need to be answered morally as our world changes.  I'm not sure that imagining hypothetical situations to 'prove' problems with social liberalism is likely to make much sense though.

"
overlapping “rights not to procreate.” First, there is a right not to be a gestational parent: That is, a woman has the right to stop gestating, or carrying a fetus to term. Second, there is a right not to be a legal parent: The law cannot force on a woman, against her wishes, the legal duties of parenthood. Finally, the right to have an abortion implies a right not to be a genetic parent — for there to be no child that comes into being that is her genetic offspring."
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/23/16186468/artificial-wombs-radically-transform-abortion-debate

Transferring the fetus out of the woman only solves the gestation part. If the fetus is viable what happens to the other 2?

We split atoms and went to the moon, figuring out DNA can't be any more difficult than those two things once humanity puts its mind to it.

If the woman has bad memories with mental illness I imagine she would sacrifice creativity to avoid mental illness.

I enjoy the thought experiment. Holding things as absolutes (such as a woman's right to choose) may turn out bad as our culture shifts and changes. As you point out the general term is towards greater individuality. The more power an individual has the more responsibility to use it properly.

Today if a woman gives birth, she's legally forced into responsibility for the child (unless she jumps through the legal hoops required for adoption).  This of course isn't a problem when an abortion takes place, but a child unwanted by the parent and birthed from an artificial womb to avoid abortion should be raised by the state until such time as it can be put up for adoption.  This should keep the pro-choice people happy (the woman gets her choice) and the pro-life people happy (the baby isn't aborted).  Unless the pro-life people merely want to force the child on the woman as a punishment for carnal sin.  But if that's the case - fuck them.  If they have a problem with paying for the children that they don't want to abort - well, that's kinda hypocritical isn't it?

I'd say that it's just as likely that a woman might choose the creativity/possible mental illness genes in the hopes that her child is the a superstar musician or poet.

I like your scientific optimism.  The drive to split atoms was to develop more efficient ways of killing people . . .  now it's impossible to build a new nuclear reactor.  We went to the moon, walked around, and can no longer do so . . . because people aren't interested in science.

FWIW, I've never held a woman's right to choose as an absolute.  It is a bad idea currently, let alone in a hypothetical future.  If a fetus is 9 months old, I don't think an abortion should be legal . . . and this is not a particularly unusual position to hold.

People will debate it and find a path.

There isn't really a point to debating what a woman would do since there are 3 billion, each with their own unique set of circumstances and experiences which will dictate what they would decide.

Nuclear power suffers from bad PR. People won't change their opinion until there is a crisis which forces them to grudgingly accept that current methods don't work.

In order for society to function, everyone will have to compromise. Certain people hold ideals as absolutes which means they won't compromise which leads to inefficienies in society as people refuse to function.

I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . .  slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.  and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc.

Despite the furor, social conservatives historically always lose in the end . . . but often they manage to cause a lot of pain and suffering before they finally do capitulate.  So what exactly is the draw to the movement?  What are it's long term goals?

I'll give it a shot :). One clear example is opposing communism. Lenin/Stalin/Maoism was one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity and they were right to oppose it at every turn. In fact I think they may not have gone far enough, and that is a result of living in, traveling through, and observing a number of communist and formerly communist countries.

Another point is that social conservatism is pretty much by definition mostly right, because pretty much all new ideas are bunk. Of course most never leave people's brains, most of the rest maybe get mentioned a few times, a handful get small group followings, but at some point people realize it was not actually that great an idea, with a low rate of exceptions. There are a few cases where they have been absurdly catastrophically wrong, but those are exaggerated by survivor bias (you never heard of the countless times they were right because those ideas never gained enough traction to get heard or remembered) and your strong personal bias.

I also have a theory that those who call themselves social conservatives are those who want to maximize their group's ability to win, which I will say has historically been equal to a group's population X productivity X social unity. Historically that has been pretty much the only winning strategy, and groups who did poorly at it disappeared. So they have mostly been right. On the other hand, always maximizing those is not necessarily good for individuals or for the species as a whole, which is where liberals in every society fit in emphasizing both individuality and collectivism.

Break your list into the three factors that maximize winning:
Maximize Population:
Oppose abortion
Oppose birth control
Oppose any sex except heterosexual sex
Minimal women's rights
Favor immigration of individuals with similar values or who could easily adopt similar values

Maximize Productivity:
Oppose recreational drugs and drunkenness
Favor capitalism, with some constraints
You didn't mention any, but historically productivity is proportional to energy expenditure so:
Maximixe oil production
Maximize cattle production (the highest energy form of sustenance)
Most and largest vehicles
Maximal industry
and others

Maximize Social Unity
Democracy may not do this (but it also may)
Oppose excessive civil rights
Oppose gays if they view themselves as fundamentally different to the group
Oppose interracial marriage
Oppose immigration by those who are very different
Oppose dissenting religions
Uniform clothing

Put those together and you can see that social conservatism is a highly effective strategy for a group to win. PopulationXproductivityXunity has been so successful for so long that it is deeply entrenched around the world.

I don't think slavery was conservative. It only really flourished in the New World where the European traditionalists wouldn't be disturbed. It could never have been done at scale within Europe because the populists would have burned the slaveowners at the stake for bringing in thousands of abjectly different foreigners to take their jobs for no pay. The conservative elite would have opposed it because a slave would never have been as efficient or innovative as a person getting paid would have been (lower productivity), and it introduced into society a large group of deeply resentful people with a very different culture (divided populace). It violated two of the three conservative objectives, in addition to the liberal ideals. Basically it was a terrible idea doomed to failure, and it is tragic that the social conservatives of the time didn't squish it before it started. Anybody who thinks slavery was a good idea is an idiot rather than a conservative.



Pretty much what this guy said.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #128 on: June 23, 2019, 06:52:54 AM »
I have been reading some Jordan Petersen (ahem) and he asserts that slavery is the way of the world, and is the default for human existence.  It takes a level of enlightenment to go against slavery as the norm.  I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.  And it is probably true.  The strong can always abuse the weak, and it takes compassion to go against it.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #129 on: June 23, 2019, 10:22:44 AM »


FWIW, I've never held a woman's right to choose as an absolute.  It is a bad idea currently, let alone in a hypothetical future.  If a fetus is 9 months old, I don't think an abortion should be legal . . . and this is not a particularly unusual position to hold.


A woman's right to choose abortion is an absolute right.

"Absolute rights" is a term  that is synonymous with "negative rights," "negative liberties,"  "human rights," "universal rights," "inalienable rights," "unalienable rights," "fundamental liberties," "fundamental rights," and "natural rights."


Inherency characterizes  absolute rights: Inherency  is the reason they are absolute.  As such they are neither  grantable nor revocable. Absolute rights are immutable and timeless. They exist independent of any society, legislature, statute book, or court. The absoluteness of these  rights is distinctly separate from their exercise. If exercised absolutely their untrammeled exercise  would collide  with ordered liberty, a constitutional  essential that requires  exercise of all rights to be in conformity with reasonable constraints.


Roe
is a case in point. Predictably, the Court was not persuaded that its finding of a  woman's fundamental right to choose abortion allowed her "to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses."


« Last Edit: June 23, 2019, 10:24:33 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #130 on: June 23, 2019, 12:21:41 PM »


FWIW, I've never held a woman's right to choose as an absolute.  It is a bad idea currently, let alone in a hypothetical future.  If a fetus is 9 months old, I don't think an abortion should be legal . . . and this is not a particularly unusual position to hold.


A woman's right to choose abortion is an absolute right.

"Absolute rights" is a term  that is synonymous with "negative rights," "negative liberties,"  "human rights," "universal rights," "inalienable rights," "unalienable rights," "fundamental liberties," "fundamental rights," and "natural rights."


Inherency characterizes  absolute rights: Inherency  is the reason they are absolute.  As such they are neither  grantable nor revocable. Absolute rights are immutable and timeless. They exist independent of any society, legislature, statute book, or court. The absoluteness of these  rights is distinctly separate from their exercise. If exercised absolutely their untrammeled exercise  would collide  with ordered liberty, a constitutional  essential that requires  exercise of all rights to be in conformity with reasonable constraints.


Roe
is a case in point. Predictably, the Court was not persuaded that its finding of a  woman's fundamental right to choose abortion allowed her "to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses."

This seems like splitting hairs.  You're arguing that the right itself is absolute, but that the exercise of that right is subject to constraints.  In a practical sense, if you aren't allowed to exercise a right under some circumstances then most people do not consider it "absolute".

All of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are subject to restrictions.  You have freedom of speech, but not for libel or shouting fire in a crowded theater.  You have the freedom to own "arms", but not tanks, nukes, chemical or biological weapons.  Our enumerated rights are not practically absolute, despite your assertion that they are inherent.  They're ALL subject to limitations.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #131 on: June 23, 2019, 05:30:21 PM »
Social conservatives typically value family.  Perhaps this is why the artificial uteruses seem so... wrong?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4583
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #132 on: June 23, 2019, 05:39:25 PM »
Social conservatives typically value family.

A few thousand children currently being kept in concentration camps away from their parents without blankets might challenge that assumption. At least the ones old enough to understand the question.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #133 on: June 23, 2019, 06:24:12 PM »
Social conservatives only seem to like a very rigid certain type of family.  Not immigrant families, single parent families, gay families, etc.  They have begun to tolerate mixed race families at least. . .

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #134 on: June 24, 2019, 02:02:35 PM »
I once read an interesting book about surrogate mothers, people who so love the process of growing a baby that they volunteer to do it for other people.  There was a lot of discussion about how different women respond in different ways to pregnancy, with the majority finding it not only inconvenient and painful but generally horrible for all aspects of their lives.  But then there's this slim minority of women who genuinely love it, through some combination of genetics and social conditioning, who find it awakens their senses and alters the body and mind in ways that they then lament losing.

So I doubt artificial wombs will ever wholly replace natural childbirth.  At least some people will still do it the old fashioned way, as long as it's allowed.  Remember that the whole plot of Brave New World is based on the unexpected, and thus uncontrollable, natural birth of a person outside of the state's factory wombs.

I'm one of those weird women. I loved how I felt when I was pregnant (happy hormones), I even enjoyed breast feeding. In college I considered being an egg donor or surrogate Mom (yes in part for the money, but also because I didn't mind it so much), except I was worried about future fertility. Mom's mom side of the family was like that; grandmother's sisters of which there were 6 or 7, all had large families. Yes they were Catholic but it also seemed their preference.  Not to say pregnancy is comfortable or I had zero side effects, but on the whole it was something I was very glad to experience.   

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #135 on: June 24, 2019, 02:09:45 PM »
Just to be a devil's advocate, but I would say social conservatives are right in that drugs can be bad for one's physical and mental health. Most people here would agree that making meth or pcp or crack illegal is not a bad thing. In turn have if not bans but at least restrictions on alcohol and pot and who can smoke (age wise) and in what situations is actually better for society and healthier for the individual.

And this is my own personal baggage, but going through my divorce, ex and I got married making vows to each other. But during the breakup there was a lot of verbiage "re-framing" the marriage in different ways. He cheated on me: he said that he was glad I "gave" him a "free range marriage". His affair partner tried to push articles and books on me to normalize cheating. In turn the brief time I did internet dating both young and older men want the benefits of dating without any comcomitant commitment. In particular there was many individuals both looking for sex, and kinky sex without any reassurances of even serial monogamy.  I do appreciate that I can sexually be with my current partner without HAVING to be married to him. I'm glad people have access to birth control and there is not that stigma. But at least for me as a women (and my kids who now have a part-time Dad), the "sexual revolution" does not seem to be a huge improvement. I do think 2 parent homes are better than single parent homes for raising children, but it seems easy for men especially to opt out without much consequences or even social stigma.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 02:15:40 PM by partgypsy »

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5673
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #136 on: June 24, 2019, 02:20:28 PM »
I once read an interesting book about surrogate mothers, people who so love the process of growing a baby that they volunteer to do it for other people.  There was a lot of discussion about how different women respond in different ways to pregnancy, with the majority finding it not only inconvenient and painful but generally horrible for all aspects of their lives.  But then there's this slim minority of women who genuinely love it, through some combination of genetics and social conditioning, who find it awakens their senses and alters the body and mind in ways that they then lament losing.

So I doubt artificial wombs will ever wholly replace natural childbirth.  At least some people will still do it the old fashioned way, as long as it's allowed.  Remember that the whole plot of Brave New World is based on the unexpected, and thus uncontrollable, natural birth of a person outside of the state's factory wombs.

I'm one of those weird women. I loved how I felt when I was pregnant (happy hormones), I even enjoyed breast feeding. In college I considered being an egg donor or surrogate Mom (yes in part for the money, but also because I didn't mind it so much), except I was worried about future fertility. Mom's mom side of the family was like that; grandmother's sisters of which there were 6 or 7, all had large families. Yes they were Catholic but it also seemed their preference.  Not to say pregnancy is comfortable or I had zero side effects, but on the whole it was something I was very glad to experience.
This is fascinating to me. I think I didn’t realize this even was a thing for some women. Personally pregnancy is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy unless that was what the person really really wanted. For people who want it it is wonderful. For anything less than that my experiences is that it is among to sentencing someone to 24/7 hard labor camp with no chance of parole.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #137 on: June 24, 2019, 02:31:36 PM »
I once read an interesting book about surrogate mothers, people who so love the process of growing a baby that they volunteer to do it for other people.  There was a lot of discussion about how different women respond in different ways to pregnancy, with the majority finding it not only inconvenient and painful but generally horrible for all aspects of their lives.  But then there's this slim minority of women who genuinely love it, through some combination of genetics and social conditioning, who find it awakens their senses and alters the body and mind in ways that they then lament losing.

So I doubt artificial wombs will ever wholly replace natural childbirth.  At least some people will still do it the old fashioned way, as long as it's allowed.  Remember that the whole plot of Brave New World is based on the unexpected, and thus uncontrollable, natural birth of a person outside of the state's factory wombs.

I'm one of those weird women. I loved how I felt when I was pregnant (happy hormones), I even enjoyed breast feeding. In college I considered being an egg donor or surrogate Mom (yes in part for the money, but also because I didn't mind it so much), except I was worried about future fertility. Mom's mom side of the family was like that; grandmother's sisters of which there were 6 or 7, all had large families. Yes they were Catholic but it also seemed their preference.  Not to say pregnancy is comfortable or I had zero side effects, but on the whole it was something I was very glad to experience.
This is fascinating to me. I think I didn’t realize this even was a thing for some women. Personally pregnancy is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy unless that was what the person really really wanted. For people who want it it is wonderful. For anything less than that my experiences is that it is among to sentencing someone to 24/7 hard labor camp with no chance of parole.

For a long time (though I never contradicted anyone), I thought to myself that women complaining about their pregnancies were just doing it for colorful effect or for female solidarity, not because they actually felt that way. What is funy is that I'm not a baby person Before I had kids all babies looked like formless blobs to me. Even after having kids I enjoyed them more when they got past the infant small toddler stage (because yes THAT part was very hard work). 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #138 on: June 24, 2019, 03:11:57 PM »
Just to be a devil's advocate, but I would say social conservatives are right in that drugs can be bad for one's physical and mental health. Most people here would agree that making meth or pcp or crack illegal is not a bad thing. In turn have if not bans but at least restrictions on alcohol and pot and who can smoke (age wise) and in what situations is actually better for society and healthier for the individual.

While I don't believe that social liberals would disagree that consumption of many drugs are bad for your physical and mental well-being, I suppose that's a valid point.

Generally I believe that people should be free to make their own choices regarding the substances they want to put in their bodies.  But there are certain extremely addictive drugs that would seem to make sense to control.  Cocaine, Heroin, Methamphetamine . . . given their tendency to ruin people's lives through addiction, it's tricky to make a strong argument that they should be available to anyone jonesing for another hit.

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5673
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #139 on: June 24, 2019, 03:56:51 PM »
I doubt anyone of any political persuasion would be championing for more heroine for all. I can see one set of people being strongly for prohibition at any cost and another set being willing to consider alternative schemes that do a better job of achieving the end goal of less harm and fewer addicts.

“Don’t let evidence get in the way of good ideology” seems to be a mantra that some love to stick to. I’m thinking sec education, access to birth control, climate change, vaccinations, GMOs, and others.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #140 on: June 24, 2019, 09:52:43 PM »
I doubt anyone of any political persuasion would be championing for more heroine for all. I can see one set of people being strongly for prohibition at any cost and another set being willing to consider alternative schemes that do a better job of achieving the end goal of less harm and fewer addicts.

“Don’t let evidence get in the way of good ideology” seems to be a mantra that some love to stick to. I’m thinking sec education, access to birth control, climate change, vaccinations, GMOs, and others.

Portugal seems to have hit on something, but the plan doesn't allow for the shaming of others and self-righteousness of our current plan, so it seems unlikely to catch on.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

Tangentially related TED Talk "Everything You Know About Addiction is Wrong":

https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_you_know_about_addiction_is_wrong?language=en

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #141 on: June 25, 2019, 06:08:55 AM »
re: the sexual revolution not being a huge improvement --- thank you for this.

This is a balancing act.  It is bad to push young girls into premature sexuality, just as it is bad to expect young girls to not have any sexual thoughts or feelings.  It is wrong not to expect any consequences of responsibility of men and women for their actions.

Like personally, I don't appreciate things like Howard Stern's pushing of anal sex on the populace, particularly on men as an expectation and on women to oblige the men.

The extremes are very bad on both ends. 

« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 06:12:04 AM by KBecks »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #142 on: June 25, 2019, 08:33:05 AM »
re: the sexual revolution not being a huge improvement --- thank you for this.

This is a balancing act.  It is bad to push young girls into premature sexuality, just as it is bad to expect young girls to not have any sexual thoughts or feelings.  It is wrong not to expect any consequences of responsibility of men and women for their actions.

Like personally, I don't appreciate things like Howard Stern's pushing of anal sex on the populace, particularly on men as an expectation and on women to oblige the men.

The extremes are very bad on both ends.

I agree. It does seem like the extreme of either side (right or left) is really not a place I want to live. In general I feel like people's sexual lives should be their own private business. Socially, media-wise it feels like our culture is youth and sex oriented. It feels like for example to be a successful singer or band, can't just be good with music but "look" a certain way. I have 2 daughters and I don't want them to feel pressured in any way to be sexual sooner than they are comfortable, and be OK whatever the situation is, to say "no" if they don't want to even if culture is saying everything goes.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #143 on: June 25, 2019, 08:50:00 AM »
re: the sexual revolution not being a huge improvement --- thank you for this.

This is a balancing act.  It is bad to push young girls into premature sexuality, just as it is bad to expect young girls to not have any sexual thoughts or feelings.  It is wrong not to expect any consequences of responsibility of men and women for their actions.

Like personally, I don't appreciate things like Howard Stern's pushing of anal sex on the populace, particularly on men as an expectation and on women to oblige the men.

The extremes are very bad on both ends.

I agree. It does seem like the extreme of either side (right or left) is really not a place I want to live. In general I feel like people's sexual lives should be their own private business. Socially, media-wise it feels like our culture is youth and sex oriented. It feels like for example to be a successful singer or band, can't just be good with music but "look" a certain way. I have 2 daughters and I don't want them to feel pressured in any way to be sexual sooner than they are comfortable, and be OK whatever the situation is, to say "no" if they don't want to even if culture is saying everything goes.

Social liberals believe that a persons sexual life should be his or her own private business.  They don't believe in attempting to force others to live differently.  That's a stark contrast with social conservatives, and seems to be exactly what you're advocating.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #144 on: June 25, 2019, 09:19:34 AM »
If banning of substances is a conservative position, how would we classify a ban on sodas? What about guns?

Is prohibition really a conservative position? In a political sense, conservatism is against regulation. Social conservatism on the other hand is against the use of drugs. Perhaps the position of discouraging while allowing their use is the conservative position.

I think there's too many definitions of conservative to properly use the word without specifying which version you're using, and even then, it's complicated. There's political, economic, & social conservatism which overlap but are not the same then there's the conservative as opposed to liberal and also the conservative as opposed to progressive.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #145 on: June 25, 2019, 09:28:34 AM »
If banning of substances is a conservative position, how would we classify a ban on sodas? What about guns?

Are the proposals to outright ban all soda?  And outright ban all guns?  Or are they part of a more nuanced discussion of societal benefits and tradeoffs of partial restrictions?

Take drugs for example.  A hard left social liberal might want to see over the counter legalization of crack cocaine, including sale to minors.  That's far from the average position of the majority of social liberals though, who are in favor of more freedom for drugs with reasonable restrictions ( based on age, potency of chemical, likelihood of addiction, etc.)



Is prohibition really a conservative position? In a political sense, conservatism is against regulation. Social conservatism on the other hand is against the use of drugs. Perhaps the position of discouraging while allowing their use is the conservative position.

Fiscal conservatism is against regulation.  Social conservatism is for regulation.  It's important to not confuse the two, they are often presented like they're the same thing in North America.



I think there's too many definitions of conservative to properly use the word without specifying which version you're using, and even then, it's complicated. There's political, economic, & social conservatism which overlap but are not the same then there's the conservative as opposed to liberal and also the conservative as opposed to progressive.

Agreed.  That's why I was explicit in use of the term 'social conservative' and have tried to be as clear as possible on this.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #146 on: June 25, 2019, 01:57:00 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/.../uk-abortion-mentally-disabled-woman.html

The natural right of procreation is a dual right inclusive of the right to have children or not.

This  is an interesting and timely case on procreation in which an appeal to a British Court persuaded it to rule in favor of the former.

Speaking of the original ruling, an anti-abortion advocate said “There is no way such a judgment should ever have been made and had it gone ahead would have been a most grave violation of human rights."




« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 03:34:06 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #147 on: June 25, 2019, 02:18:49 PM »
The natural right of procreation is a dual right inclusive of the right to have children or not.

Rights are an imaginary and human construct.  The concept of 'natural rights' is in fact, wholly unnatural and unique to the minds of people.  In nature you will find no entity granting rights, but plenty denying them - quite naturally.  The term 'natural rights' is often used to advocate an idea while attempting to shut down debate regarding the necessity and origin of said rights by insinuating that they are somehow a law of nature.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #148 on: June 25, 2019, 04:04:42 PM »
The natural right of procreation is a dual right inclusive of the right to have children or not.

Rights are an imaginary and human construct.  The concept of 'natural rights' is in fact, wholly unnatural and unique to the minds of people.  In nature you will find no entity granting rights, but plenty denying them - quite naturally.  The term 'natural rights' is often used to advocate an idea while attempting to shut down debate regarding the necessity and origin of said rights by insinuating that they are somehow a law of nature.


Wikipedia


"The United Nations views forced marriage as a form of human rights abuse, since it violates the principle of the freedom and autonomy of individuals. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that a person's right to choose a spouse and enter freely into marriage is central to his/her life and dignity, and his/her equality as a human being."


I agree with the United Nations' position against forced marriage.

I think you surely agree as well.

If so, what informs you as to the correctness of the United Nations' position?

« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 04:07:43 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14312
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #149 on: June 25, 2019, 07:25:50 PM »
My own personal mental construct of morality and rights.  (Which I think are very important!).  But I don't pretend that because I believe them they're somehow an example of 'natural law'.  Nature doesn't give a fuck.