3 ms·

> Because it is forced? Obviously so is forced foreskin removal and forced tooth correction, so I fail to see that point. > In general, actions done to childr

> Because it is forced? Obviously so is forced foreskin removal and forced tooth correction, so I fail to see that point. > In general, actions done to children by their parents (or with their parents' expressed, unequivocal consent) are not considered "forced" except in cases where the harm is large. So, male circumcision or teeth corrections or vaccinations are not "forced" on the children, because they are acts that their parents consider are beneficial to the child. I see, so it would be fine of the parents were the ones forcibly sterilizing them rather than the government. I find that absurd: I for one am in favor of government-mandated vaccinations and find this to be a very desirable thing opposed to letting parents be the ones to decide. > However, if the state were to force children to be circumcised or have their teeth aligned regardless of their parents' desires, then most people would object to that. Yes, which I find absurd. It matters not to the man whose body was irreparably altered whence the order to do so came — it's a rather shallow comfort to then be told that it was fine because it was the will of one's parents rather than the government's. > Even more importantly, any actions which affect someone's ability to use their body in a normal way are generally considered abhorrent. That is why male circumcision is usually tolerated, while female circumcision is an abomination, even if done by one's parents. Forced sterilization is obviously in the second case, since it is terminally preventing someone from performing one of the 3 fundamental components of life. 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. And with “all”, one can argue roughly half of all; 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 — as if that not be rooted in some belief that a female's primary function is to be a reproductive engine: close your eyes and think of England.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> 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).
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > 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. Which of both would you choose?
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    > 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.

tsimionescu 6y ago

> 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).

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> 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. Which of both would you choose?
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > 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.