|
GlyphGryph posted:Now, imagine that the drug only worked in the formative years. On children, essentially. Would it be acceptable for parents of children experiencing gender dysphoria to give their child the drug? Obviously not, since we have available treatments to change their bodies when they're old enough to give input on the decision, so why not just do that?
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's not exactly an easy route to take. How would you justify forcing the person to choose between dysphoria or a more traditional transitioning process? Neither is something I would voluntarily subject someone to. Because it's their choice to make. Let's say we had a pill that would change a baby's body and brain into the opposite sex that only works in infancy. Would it be ethical to do it to your baby girl because you always wanted a boy?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Assuming it has no side effects, that decision would be entirely non-moral, as in the choice would not require a moral decision, both male and female children are valid so the only deciding factor would be personal preference. Just because you're changing your child into an equally valid human being doesn't mean that it's ethical to do so without their consent. Liking football and not liking football are also equally valid, but treatments to change your kid's brain to like all the things you like seem problematic to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
So essentially you can morally do anything you want to a baby, since it's not a proper person, as long as there's a pill available to give it that will ensure it doesn't care when it gets older so no one has been hurt. That's interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Er, you probably shouldn't start killing/beating babies, that is stupid and destructive and obviously immoral, I didn't think I would need to specify that... Well sure, but short of that, right, as long as you make sure it doesn't bother them later. Maybe give them the straight-making pill that was suggested earlier to make sure they don't grow up gay. Or cut off a foot and give them the pill someone else brought up that makes them happy not to have a foot. Is there harm if you do it when they still have 0% value and you make sure they're happy about it when they reach critical-human-value and it becomes wrong to tamper with them without consent? Or do humans have some inherent right to govern themselves after all instead of being a means to satisfy their parents' arbitrary whims until they reach some fuzzy indistinct threshold of self-actualization or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you put me in charge of looking after a child, it is my absolute responsibility to give that child the best opportunities I can, as well as to minimize the amount of senseless pain they have to endure. Self determination is important but until one has the experience to understand the decision, one cannot self determine. Benevolent, but outside determination is better than no determination. When the pain is senseless and caused by other people being senseless, why should the victims (or their parents) have any responsibility in this situation? This line of reasoning would seem to imply that any painless method of ensuring we only give birth to (white? straight?) males is a parental responsibility. Sex-selective abortion is possible now; are you going to make use of it to ensure your child has the absolute best possible opportunities in male-dominated society? e: not accusing you of being a misogynist or anything, just noting that your reasoning has some strange implications
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends, you can also make the argument that as that kind of selective screening of children is not available to many people, utilizing it hurts people as a whole by reinforcing malicious thinking in the world at large. Could we not make the argument that de-transing people hurts existing trans people as a whole by reinforcing anti-trans sentiment in the world at large? OwlFancier posted:The question would be whether it is ethical to decide to use people as sacrificial lambs on the altar of social acceptance, to knowingly give someone a life you know is going to be hard, in the hopes that it will make future lives less hard. Is it ethical to make one person suffer for the hopeful good of many? So, if you have a child one day, you definitely would use artificial insemination or sex-selective abortions to ensure the child is born male? Genuinely asking because it seems like that is what you are saying. E: I mean I can't necessarily say it's wrong in the individual case but something about it sure rubs me the wrong way. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 02:35
|
|