apart from avoiding essentialist associations between a gender and some sort of preference or behaviour... — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am much more of an essentialist than a constructionist, so essentialist associations are not something I would be anxious to avoid.

But, we are not so genetically programmed that there is no room for a range of behaviors to exist.

There aren't really any stereotypes though, just people being themselves (or not, as the case might sometimes be — TheWillowOfDarkness

What do you mean, "there aren't any stereotypes"? Your statement is contrary to the facts. Lots of stereotypes exist, some positive, some negative, and they seem to be quite influential.

The article got my back up very early on: "And now researchers have discovered it also can promote ethnocentrism, potentially fueling xenophobia, prejudice and violence."

I doubt it very, very much. There aren't any "ethnocentrism" hormones or neurotransmitters; no chemical to make people prejudiced. There are neurotransmitters, hormones, and other chemicals that are required to express/experience love, lust, hate, generosity, greediness, and so on. The brain can not play tic-tac-toe or add 2+2 without neurotransmitters being on hand.

If people spontaneously spout ethnocentrism or sexism, or whatever, it is probably an instinctual (genetic) trait. Neurotransmitters don't "cause" thoughts as much as they facilitate the processing of thoughts.

It would not be surprising if a hormone or neurotransmitter played contradictory or peculiar roles. I use eyedrops to control intraocular pressure (glaucoma) which is derived from a female hormone. Beats me. If you give a man testosterone to boost circulating male hormone (in hopes of getting buffed faster) it often backfires because if the testicles notice there is enough or more than enough T in the blood, they cut production. Better to let them make it themselves.

All it's really doing is decoupling the idea certain behaviours or preferences are the exclusive nature of one gender or another. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well put, but I am not enthusiastic about this decoupling.

Hey, I'm 72. At some point one has to decide which cutting edges to sit on, and which cutting edges to avoid. Decoupling sex and gender roles is too edgy at this point. Once upon a time the idea was more attractive than it is to me now. In the first flush of gay liberation -- early 1970s -- this sort of thinking was de regueur. Many flushes later, 40 years worth, I'm tired of the topic

How will all this come out in the wash? Most individuals are going to track standard heterosexual gender/sex role stereotypes and live happily ever after. Some people, some of them homosexuals, are likely to trip over stereotypes until they can sort out the variables. Most gay men are going to do what most gay men do now -- adjust standard heterosexual male stereotypes to homosexuality and live happily ever after. (I don't speak for dykes--waaay too risky.)

It's interesting how minor (not an insulting term) thinkers can have a major influence. My minor thinker is Daniel DeLeon, who died... 1914? He bounced around, like Fresco did, and eventually settled into the editorship of the Socialist Labor Party -- now a largely moribund organization. My exposure to him was through some former SLP people who started the New Union Party, which lasted for about 35 years. The SLP/NUP idea is that, "in a democratic society, it is far more sensible to use democratic means to further socialism than to resort to violent revolution. (The Bolsheviks, whatever else they were, were not residents of a democratic state.) We advocated militant unionism, public education, party organization, and eventually (dream on) winning over the populace to industrial democracy.

I noticed that Fresco worked with Earl "Madman" Muntz. Muntz, I know, was involved in the development of television early on, and among other things 4 track tape. (Unless you are into audio visual stuff, 4 track tape isn't very interesting.)

There are a lot fo ideas floating around out there that can, should, and ought to be at least tried, if not applied, but there are also a lot of fossilized vested interests that won't, can't, and will never stop blocking progress.

As that famous progressive Republican Senator, Hiram Johnson, said about identity wars, "The first victim of the gender war is truth."

on what empirical or philosophical plinth do we stand — Baden

Upon whatever plinth we are precariously perched, I propose we are probably preaching to the persnickety practitioners of professional nit picking. I want the whole pillar.

Oh no they're not! — unenlightened

OK, OK, but people do rather regularly lie to themselves and others.

But is it not also possible to discuss together why you each think your way is the best? — unenlightened

If we really are leaving it to the Badenses and Hanovers to raise their children as they see fit, then there is no reason to discuss which one is the best. If the Badenses end up beating their children, and the Hanovers regularly send their children to bed without supper, we'll just have to let the blood spatter and malnutrition fall where it may.

I would suggest that gender neutrality as described is rather refraining from imposing an ideology of what character is appropriate to each sex. — unenlightened

They who claim to be gender neutral are probably lying, quite possibly to themselves as well as to others.

There are regular doubts raised about the validity of social sciences, psychology included. A good deal of what passes in the social / behavioral sciences for science is, in fact, doubtable. Psychologists are good at measuring cognitive performance, for instance. They can tell you just how, and to what extent, a traumatic brain injury or disease has impaired mental functioning. Tests and measurements in cognitive functioning (learning, memory, problem solving, etc.) have good validity and reliability measures.

The assessment of personality is a much less solid area of psychology--despite its being the most interesting, or maybe because it is the most interesting. Measuring personality traits is dicey, and the validity and reliability of personality tests is not all that great.

Then when it comes to theorizing about personality, and proposing what a psychologist or psychotherapist should work toward, psychologists can not be unbiased, and nobody else can either. "What are desirable and undesirable human traits?" can not be a neutral question. Psychologists have both an official and unofficial policing function. Sometimes the policing function is specific (psychologists working in forensic settings) but most often the policing function has to do with policing the boundaries between what a psychologist or therapist thinks are acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, as he or she experiences it in the social context. The authors of the APA document would not be free of any of these limitations.

"Psychology" is an professional practice; it is also a business. The profession has needs: maintaining some sort of consistency across hundreds of thousands of practitioners is one need. Maintaining the need for psychologists is also a need. The more deviant conditions that can be identified, the better. Consequently the DSM gets bigger and bigger with every revision.

Professionals--with 1 or 2 expensive post-baccalaureate degrees, and either membership in or aspirations to join the upper middle class--come with class biases too, which may be quite discordant with working class biases.

The upshot: Take the recommendations with numerous grains of salt.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves..."?

Look at socialism/communism. If you read it, it sounds perfectly noble but it's not practicable because we're, by nature, greedy, selfish, power-hungry, etc. — TheMadFool

I too think there is such a thing as human nature, and it is true that we often demonstrate that we are greedy, selfish, power hungry, and worse. Unfortunately for your negative conclusion, we also demonstrate that we are generous, altruistic, peacefully inclined, and better.

The fundamental problem of our human nature is that we are driven toward conflicting goals. We want to walk through the valley of death and fear no evil but, unfortunately, we sometimes find that the only way we can do that is to be the meanest son of a bitch in the valley.

There isn't any way we are going to change our perversely contradictory nature. The best we can do is arrange society in such a way that being the meanest son of a bitch isn't the best way to get ahead. Predatory capitalism is one of several meanest-son-of-bitch systems. Surely we can do better, without resorting to some utopian scheme.

We are certainly aware that bad policy put into effect can have disastrous consequences.

What Brexit seems to mean is that a lot of people are going to get totally screwed.

The only way it would be true that nothing is better than, larger than, hotter than, faster than... is if we lived in a two dimensional universe (which is impossible to imagine). We would have no perspective. We couldn't perceive that less is more, bigger is better, good food is better than bad food, or anything else. Comparison would be out of the question because we wouldn't see differences. Quality and quantity wouldn't exist in a 2-dimensional world.

Fortunately for us highly opinionated, judgmental, comparison prone beings, we do live in a 3-dimensional universe. Make that 4-dimensional if you include time. Better than, worse than, before, after, useful, useless, good, bad, and so forth exist in this world.

Since we are capable of perceiving moral differences, and because we have moral preferences, we can say that Gandhi is good, Hitler is bad, (or visa versa if you are THAT kind of person), and, yes, people are better than ants.

It's possible to get all tied up in word games, and some people like that. "People are more than ants." Well, that may be true, but "There are more ants than people."

For my money, good food is better than bad food. Bigger is better. People who are honest, decent, kind, and loving are better than people who are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels. Ants are fine in their place as long as they don't get too big and move in with me.

Whether any of this would still be true (or false) if a supernova destroyed earth tomorrow, is not clear. We'd have to try it and see what difference a vaporized earth made to our discussion. Do you happen to have a handy star about to NOVA?

However I think it would be irresponsible to leave that world for future generations — hachit

Irresponsible, indeed. Most unkind -- but that is what we are doing. People who are in their 20s or younger, and everyone who will be born later, are being screwed out of a decent future. I'm glad I'm 72 and not 22, because I think the remainder of the century is pretty much down hill in terms of the environment and global warming, (and continuing down hill in the 22nd century and later).

James Howard Kunstler, who writes about ecology, global warming, peak oil, and so on, wrote a quartet of novels under the heading "A World Made by Hand". Kunstler's story is post-collapse, post apocalyptic. He doesn't dwell on the event that finally collapsed society, but here we are in a small, up-state New York town, representative of where the world is at. No oil, no electricity, no internet, no telephone, etc. etc.

People are required to live (at best) at a 19th century level (not that bad, really) except they don't just naturally know how to do that. They have to figure it out. There is of course a huge population loss. Even though the people in the novels understand what causes disease, they don't have the means to deal with infection, for instance.

Despite all that, the novels are fairly up-beat. In the end, enough people survive well enough that they can have hope -- provided they are very disciplined, and maintain the steep learning curve of 19th century survival skills. (In some ways, "19th Century" has to refer to the first quarter -- not the last quarter of that century. In other ways, people will be forced back into the 17th century -- simpler technology. Unfortunately (and this is the message of another very good novel, Earth Abides) succeeding generations will know less and less about the 20th/21st century ways and means. The most pessimistic approach to this problem is A Canticle for Leibowitz which is set in a desert monastery after nuclear war. Society, such as it is, has been pushed back to the medieval period. It takes roughly 2000 years to fully recover, at which point they have another nuclear war. Great novel.

For instance, one can make soap out of used fat and a caustic extract of wood ashes -- but one has to know how to do it (otherwise one just ends up with gritty grease, not soap). One can preserve meat without freezing, but one has to know how, exactly, to do that -- otherwise, one will die of food poisoning (botulism, for instance). It's not hard to preserve cabbage as sauerkraut, but if not done correctly one ends up with a stinking mess--the sort of thing one finds in the distant reaches of one's refrigerator every now and then.

Will humanity die out? No, I don't think so -- but a lot of people might wish they had died sooner, once social collapse gets under way.

Well, I'm in favor of eliminating capitalism and replacing it with a hybrid variety of industrial democracy, socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism, but capitalism, capitalists, and their defended system are so deeply entrenched, the chances of such a hybrid coming about make a snowball's chance in hell seem downright rosy.

Is there any way to "unentrench" capitalism? Sure. Every system is vulnerable--in the same way that any system is dependent on the consent of the population (ultimately). People could just say NO to capitalism, stop going to work, stop buying things, stop cooperating with the government, etc. etc. etc. That would require a revolution in the way people think, before such a revolution could be instituted.

So what -- an eternity of capitalism? No. Unfortunately, what will undo capitalism in the most unpleasant way is capitalism itself. We are experiencing one of the consequences of capitalism -- global warming -- which seems to be happening faster than climatologists thought it would even 10 years ago. When climate warming gets bad enough, economies will collapse, and with it, the survival systems of billions of people.

Economic exploitation and perpetual growth can't go on forever. Unfortunately, the denouement of over-exploitation and zombie growth is economic collapse -- again, pushing the survival of billions into oblivion. (And this would eventually take place without global warming.)

What happens in the future, in a very real sense, is nobody's choice: We are riding history, we aren't driving it.

So, our only option is the highly unlikely rejection of capitalism. Snowball in hell, again.

Otherwise, in a century or so of climate change and continued depraved exploitation by the remorseless engines of capitalism, we might be wondering how could we possibly think that we are lucky to be alive.

Opens up a door I don't want to walk through. Here I am supposing there's ''good'' reason for blaming one person, in this case Hitler, for the evils of WW2. — TheMadFool

I'm still having difficulty as to how the unfortunate cop has a choice. — TheMadFool

Let's bring WW2 and the Cop & Gang Story back together. There were at least a few million Germans in the policeman's shoes. "I, a good German, must either cooperate with the murderous Hitler regime or I will be murdered."

Hiding Jews, for instance, could get one killed. Openly opposing the regime could result in arrest, torture, death, or a trip to a concentration camp (like Dachau). Too much complaining could result in at least a trip to Gestapo headquarters and threats of worse things to come. The vice grip of control over Germans tightened over the course of the war.

There were 70 million Germans--80 million if you count annexed Austrians and the Sudeten Germans. How did the Nazis control everybody? A highly efficient civil service and police establishment, tight control over information, served to isolate dissenters. One either ran with the herd (with a reasonable level of enthusiasm) or one tended to get pushed to the edge where one would get picked off by informers, spies, the Gestapo, observant party members, and the like.

Plus, a good share of the 80 million Germans herd did not need to be coerced into the Nazi corral. They were willing members of the Gang. Who, in this vicious gang requiring the cop to kill or be killed, was responsible? The Top Thug, or the whole gang of thugs?

Probably the Top Thug was more responsible than everybody else. The TT had probably built up the gang by similar acts of coercion. But the rest of the gang can't be dismissed as victims, surely. There would be too many acts of criminal commission.

I too have known some psychologists who, likewise, seemed like quite decent folk.

I don't find Jordan Peterson objectionable, but maybe that is a matter of taste (degustibus...) and of course I don't know the guy -- beyond text and video.

Those trained to the doctorate level seem more reliable than the masters level, or less. "Counseling" can boil down to providing what a good friend provides -- a patient ear, common sense, stuff like that. Not to devalue having a "good friend" whether paid by the hour or not paid at all.

Psychiatrists, being MDs and having the power and competence to prescribe drugs and admit patients to hospital, are essential for the management of major mental illness, like schizophrenia, bi-polar, severe depression, psychosis, etc.

I've been in consciousness raising groups and have led group support meetings. Individuals can sometimes gain solid therapy for themselves from the group of untrained participants. Peer-led mental health support groups seem to be helpful for people, even if they are no substitute for psychiatric care.

One of the problems I see with counselors is that like some other professionals, they are out practicing on their own. They're not part of a group, and they don't have much oversight. "Psychotherapy" is not as well defined as dentistry, for example. (And unsupervised dentists can be bad news, too,)

There are alternatives to the version of capitalism that we have. We could certainly have an essentially capitalist economy with a much stronger welfare state. We could have an essentially capitalist economy, but institute a guaranteed minimum wage. We could have an essentially socialist economy, along with democratic institutions.

There is nothing bizarre about public ownership of at least some industries. Most water systems in the US are government owned and operated. In some countries, the water works are private businesses. North Dakota operates its own bank. Many utility companies have been municipally owned and operated. GM wouldn't be in business if the US Government hadn't propped it up. The same can be said for a few other large concerns.

Capitalism as we have known it, as we know it now, and as we might know it in the future is delivering disaster. For-profit corporations apparently can not respond to the problem of the vast costs which they have externalized: CO2, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, plastic trash and plastic micro-bits from the north pole to the south pole, PCBs, oil spills, unemployment, obesity, diabetes, cancers, etc. For the sake of our home planet, capitalism needs to be either replaced or brought to heel (like a dog, trained to obey social commands).

I expect their bangings on to at least be based on scientific research, — Baden

You are going to be disappointed again.

Despite training in counseling, despite working as a counselor, despite receiving psychotherapy (some good, some indifferent), I do not have much confidence in the whole enterprise of psychological services. Of course there are good, bad, and indifferent workers in the field, but the main problem with the field is that it focuses on individual problems, often with the explicit aim of helping the client achieve a better fit in society as it is. That's understandable. People experience life as individuals in a social context (which they may or may not like).

It seems clear, though, that the largest part of mental suffering is the result of social craziness--(Erich Fromm: The Sane Society, 1958). (Sane Society PDF)

Psychotherapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, etc. are in no position to take on a crazy society.

It's one thing to respond to the Quillette piece; it's quite another to respond to the APA document--31 pages worth, loaded with statements with which one might argue, or affirm. That includes the bibliography which is worth taking a look at.

Just for instance, the APA highlights "gender strain". I know a thing or two about that, and can affirm that sexual partner preference and most comfortable gender role can put one in conflict, not just with the dominant society but with one's preferred deviant sexual subculture as well. There also are the gender strains having more to with occupational roles, and competitive performance on the job. And more besides.

The APA claims there is such a thing as "Masculinity Ideology" which "is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive of cognitions about boys and men" including

anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology

Is there such a thing as "Masculinity ideology"? Probably not. Is there a preference among boys and men for masculine behavior (whatever all that might mean), achievement, (at least the appearance of) strength, pleasure in adventure, tolerance of risk, and a certain tolerance for violence (at least in some situations)? Most likely.

I know what fascist ideology is; I know what capitalist or communist ideology is. They exist. They're been formalized, elucidated at great length. Masculinist ideology? No. There is a much stronger argument for a feminist ideology. Where does the APA stand on feminist ideologues?

What about the degree of blame assigned to Nazis. Hitler is literally blamed for the whole thing. Doesn't this show that moral responsibility is graded according to the degree of autonomy one has in one's actions? — TheMadFool

As you say, Hitler is literally blamed for the whole thing (see: great man theory of history). In a different context, American presidents like to take the credit for a good economy, and they are blamed for a bad one. It's absurd. There are far too many powerful economic players for the president to claim much credit or take much blame.

The Nazi era sprang from deep roots. Authoritarian government, antisemitism, rigid social systems, elitism, militarism, and so on and so forth were present before Adolph Hitler's parents were born. The new unified German State of the 19th century was not particularly liberal, even if some progressive programs existed.

What Hitler managed to do was precipitate out a new political party from the turgid turbid mess of Germany following WWI. He led. Lesser but very able leaders gathered around him and more minor leaders and many followers flocked to the Nazi Party. Hitler didn't have to invent very much. The SA, for instance, the brown shirted storm troopers, were essentially the Freikorps--unemployed demobilized soldiers with nothing to do. The Krupp family's huge armaments business in the Ruhr anticipated future business well in advance of Hitler. Big Business in Germany didn't especially like decentralized, competitive free enterprise. They appreciated the Nazi's approach, for the most part.

Had Hitler not committed suicide, had he been arrested, he would certainly have been executed. There were many more who were not arrested, not tried, not convicted, not executed for war crimes, who ought to have been. Hitler didn't pull off his various evil works single handed.

If I remember correctly only the top Nazi members were executed for the Holocaust; the soldiers who actually did the killing were pardoned or their sentences commuted because they were just “following orders”. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure that is correct. When the allies closed in on Germany proper, they had a list of top Nazis who they sought, and if found, arrested. Some (like Hitler, Goebbles, Goring, Himmler, and a few dozen others) committed suicide. Some escaped (Eichmann, Mengele and others). Those who were not tried for various crimes against humanity were subject to the not very thorough denazification program. It isn't that the allies didn't care about punishing nazis, it was that there were too many less-than-top-level nazis to deal with--hundreds of thousands, if not a few million. Plus, having pulverized much of Germany, having killed many Germans, having won the war, having occupied Germany, the allies had their hands full and were, I gather, anxious to be done with the whole thing.

"Just following orders" was not an acceptable alibi at any of the trials, Nuremberg on down to the present. It didn't work for Eichmann at his trial in 1961. (Eichmann was responsible for organizing much of the Holocaust effort; he was a high level administrator, not a low level operative.) It didn't work for those who were tried immediately after the war. It didn't work for lower level SS officers who were, at one time or another, tried. It isn't an acceptable defense in those cases where prosecutions continue (even in 2019) of the occasional now aged concentration camp guard who is identified and brought to prosecutorial attention.

What saved most of the Nazis from trial--from low level operatives to the SS Einsatzgruppen who followed the Wehrmacht into the USSR and conducted huge Jew-killing operations by firing squad (3 million?) to mid-level Gestapo was the inordinately complicated task of combing out and sorting all these people. There were around 8,000,000 Nazi Party members. Not all party members were engaged in criminal activities, and many people who were engaged in criminal activity were not party members. The Nazis kept very good records, and the mass of records was so great no single investigative team could plow through very much of it quickly.

By the early 50s the occupation was wound down and investigations and prosecutions were turned over to the German Courts. Not surprisingly, the German courts were not terribly anxious to to pursue all the potential cases.

where does morality reside — Taneras

Surely in the real world.

I understand that this is an extreme hypothetical situation. I get that part.

It may not even be all that artificial. I gather that gangs and cartels at least sometimes perform rituals which are similar to the hypothetical.

It is not clear to me what the purpose of this sort of exercise is. Placing someone in this hypothetical situation where there is essentially no moral choice available and then asking what the moral choice would be is pointless.

I don't doubt that gangs as vile as this exist. The purpose of this sort of exercise is to bind the subject to the group by drinking from the trough of guilt and moral degradation. Should the undercover agent carry out the murder, as ordered, he or she will survive to face further impossible moral choices. I can imagine that a Mexican drug cartel like the Sinaloa gang might trap people through this sort of maneuver.

Just as vile but small local gangs (operating in a neighborhood near you) are known to require a felony crime of new members -- at the very least, an armed robbery or rape. Purse snatching won't suffice.

The morally appropriate approach would be to seduce a member of the gang to become a prosecution witness for what goes on in the gang.

I experimented on myself, and saw how my own brain works. — bogdan9310

The scientist who experiments on his own brain has an idiot for a subject.

So gentlemen, a logic question. If the fetus is not a potential person, and does not have a future, how than can it be a future burden on the mother, how can it have an effect on her future life she would want to avoid, how can it be a future burden on society? — Rank Amateur

Some fetuses that were not aborted are never satisfied.

Just in case anybody reads only this post without referencing the posts to which I am replying, I haven't changed my views about abortion. I am still in favor of women having ready access to safe abortion procedures.

Tim: Your explanation has convinced me. I will strike "potential person" from my thinking on abortion. Fetus it is. (I would offer to strike "potential person" from my future thinking on abortion, but I haven't had those future thoughts yet, so they don't exist, and can not be edited.)

RA: You have also presented your idea clearly, and biology provides the best terminology.

I do not accept the idea that a blastocyst (a fertilized egg that has begun dividing (2, 4, 8, 16, 32...) is

a new and unique human, at exactly the correct state of human development commensurate with its age — Rank Amateur

The blastocyst is living human tissue--what else would it be--and so is a 5 month fetus. The problem is in the particle "a" or "the" which makes "human" a noun rather than an adjective. "A human" or "the human" is problematic at that stage of development.

If your view is pure biology, you would want to use human in the adjectival sense rather than the nounal sense.

So, per my response to RA above, do you find "fetus" more acceptable than "potential person"?

Hmmm. Yes, well... Lots of determinations are kind of arbitrary, true. You have a problem with personhood, philosophical or legal. It's a distinction that I haven't thought much about, but now that you mention it... yes, there are differences. I don't really want to think about that now. (Central Processor resources are allocated for a couple of years.)

I could substitute "fetal viability" for "potential person". The result is pretty much the same: in place of 'potential person' I could say that the "fetus" is not viable at 24 weeks. I think we can all agree on what a fetus is, as well as earlier stages of development such as the blastocyst.

Are terms like "fetal viability" or "blastocyst" better for you?

"Potential person" as neologism is counterfeit coinage. — tim wood

It does not seem counterfeit to me, but what would you prefer: person or tissue?

If it is a potential person, then it is not a person, yes? — tim wood

Yes. A freshly fertilized egg is a potential person, and nowhere close to being an actual person. Personhood is best reserved for newborns who have developed muscles and lungs sufficient to breathe on their own. By that time they have normally developed neural complexity as well.

Don't ramble. Be succinct. Remain on point. — S

What's good for the reply is good for the post. Pretend you are being charged by the word.

Pro choice people will say there is no such thing as a potential person, but the pospect of how that potential person will affect their life is why they are having an abortion. — Rank Amateur

I flatly reject the argument that pro-choice people think a fetus is not a potential person. This is a very, very flimsy argument.

OF COURSE a fetus is a potential person -- what else, by any definition, could it be? Where there is disagreement is whether it is a person yet. It becomes a weaker argument that a fetus is not a person in the 8th or 9th month of pregnancy, but in the first 20 weeks, there is insufficient neural development for anything like a person to exist. Even at the beginning of the 9th month, some religious definitions hold that that fetus is not yet a person -- not until the infant has drawn breath.

What pro-choice people are doing is weighing the potential person against existing persons, and finding in favor of the latter. Pro-life people are doing the opposite -- finding in favor of potential persons over existing persons. Both positions have political implications.

What happened was, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad. — Rank Amateur

This is a rather novel argument against abortion. I haven't seen a college scholarship administrator connected to abortion before. Very creative.

Most abortions are performed early on. According to the CDC, 66% of abortions are performed during the first 8 weeks, and 92% during the first trimester. There isn't any reason to suppose the boss, the loan officer, the Philosophy Department, Amazon.com, Bloomingdales, or anyone else would know about it.

Abortion is pro men, pro power, pro all the people around the mother who perceive their life will be inconvenienced by a child. Who want a do over for that responsibility free sex society promised them. — Rank Amateur

This is a fairly radical reinterpretation of the idea that abortion is a woman's choice.

"Inconvenience" you say. You bet an unplanned, unwanted child is an inconvenience--especially for the mother who will be performing most of the heavy lifting when it comes to child rearing--an inconvenience lasting a couple of decades.

We had somehow bought the idea that abortion was necessary if women were going to rise in their professions and compete in the marketplace with men. But how had we come to agree that we will sacrifice our children, as the price of getting ahead? When does a man ever have to choose between his career and the life of his child? — Rank Amateur

A man doesn't have to choose between his career and a child because, Rank Amateur--you may have noticed--men don't get pregnant. Men are not usually responsible for day-to-day childcare.

Women might have fewer abortions IF policy and practice in the United States really were pro-child, and pro-family. They are not. From pre-natal care to post-natal support to family leave to flexible work schedules to high-quality affordable day-care services, The US fails across the board.

The American working class (which is about 90% of the population) has experienced decades of economic decline. Affordable support services have become much harder to find, if they exist at all. For the mother and father to both work, most to all of one of their incomes will be devoted to day-care for the first 6 years. If the other spouse's income isn't enough for everything else (it often isn't) then the family falls into a downward spiral of rising costs and declining income, or a sacrifice of one of the spouses careers, or both, and other untoward consequences.

It is no wonder that couples choose to abort children they simply can not afford to have. For single working women, a child is a much more difficult proposition.

The idea that women should, as a regular practice, complete the pregnancy and give the newborn to an adoption agency, is a remarkably callous approach. So is your solution of requiring birth and then raising the child. Look: In the real world, raising more children than a couple has resources to support, is a very long, hard road with negative consequences entailed for everyone concerned--and that applies to couples that are very responsible, succeed in keeping their marriages together, are diligent and hard working, and don't self-destruct.

The rate of poverty, marriage failure, single parenthood, dysfunctional families, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on and so forth has been on an upward curve because of adverse economic trends for most people. Middle-aged working class white men in the rust belts and rural districts aren't committing suicide at remarkably high rates because they lack imagination and drive. The number of school children who do not know for sure who will feed them or provide them with a bed tonight is and has been on the rise because families are falling apart.

What was that line from Bill Clinton's campaign??? I think it was "It's the economy, stupid." When the economic foundation of the working class starts buckling, families and social networks start falling apart.

The connection to abortion? Abortion is the most affordable solution. Don't like abortion? Then work for a social democratic government that is capable of organizing economic resources for the benefit of the majority of the people--the 90%--rather than the 10% richest people.

According to the Guttmacher Institute (fertility and sex education is their bailiwick)... At 2014 abortion rates, one in 20 women (5%) will have an abortion by age 20, about one in five (19%) by age 30 and about one in four (24%) by age 45.5. These figures represent a decline to a low, not an increase, over the last 40 years. 1980 was the high point in abortions.

Hypocrisy? But then again, they never said it wasn't. — Banno

I gave up being amazed at our ability as humans to justify killing the people we want dead a very long time ago. — Rank Amateur

Of course we are hypocritical and inconsistent, and that seems to be built into the human condition. We just can't avoid hypocrisy and be consistent with ourselves. We are not inherently consistent beings. We can try, but...

Something is very wrong when 1 in 5 pregnancies in the us ends in abortion. Any one who finds that acceptable has lost their compass. — Rank Amateur

Yes, something is wrong: We are doing a piss-poor job of sex education and pregnancy prevention education. Both of which are a critical piece of "life education" which we don't do very well at either. Still, even well-informed people engage in sex without pregnancy prevention in place, and women get pregnant who would really rather not have.

I don't think it's terrible that women abort pregnancies the Plan B or early abortions (before 21 weeks). It is terrible when the possibility of getting a safe abortion is precluded. Do you think that "Every child a wanted child." is a bad slogan? I think it's good. Couples who bring a wanted baby home are going to do a much better job of caring for this child. (I'm in favor of couples raising children, too. Two parents are better than 1, two breadwinners are better than 1, two role models (male/female) are better than the model of one person only, etc.

IT IS IMMORAL TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE US, BORN HUMAN BEINGS — Rank Amateur

It is immoral to kill human beings except when it is moral. If we collectively dislike a group or individual enough, then it's OK, desirable, even mandatory to kill human beings. Usually a trained group of people are detailed with the task, and we support the troops with our taxes.

I may not like that arrangement, but it seems to be an exceedingly well established set up. Just about everybody approves of the properly presented war. Just about everybody agrees that killing to protect one's property is OK. Self-defense, sure -- fire away. Just like nobody doesn't like Sara Lee, nobody doesn't like certain kinds of killing. People who are opposed to abortion on the grounds that persons are being killed could at least be consistent and be committed Quakers. 99 times out of 100 they are not.

I'm very glad that men can't get pregnant -- what a drag! As she (Gloria Steinem) said, 'If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.'

Sarte once said that hell is other people. — Wallows

I'm not sure that Sartre did anyone any favors by coming up with that line in No Exit.

What to do? — Wallows

Is there any guru, philosopher, prophet, or saint, who offers a good one-bowl-just-add-water cake mix for happiness? No. Zeno letting you down, just when you were counting on him? Typical.

@Noah Te Stroete is trying to rely on Jesus; apparently it's not going well with the Nazis he's running into. Do I have an answer? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Life sucks. Our task: Get through the day as pleasantly as possible, sleep as well as we can. Repeat. Fitting into the various schemes of this or that guru, saint, or crackpot has to be fairly low on the list.

Nothing wrong with Zeno, of course. Or Jesus. Or Bitter Crank, for that matter. It just that in the final analysis, getting through life is an individual's always-unique lonely struggle. No matter which philosopher, saint, god, or guru you consult, nobody has an easy formula.

So carry on. Complaining often helps one feel better. Unload, move on. Take care. Good luck. Best wishes.

Somehow new topics sometimes drop down the list so fast I don't notice them. Like this one.

Chomsky provides some excellent and insightful analysis into how media, politics, and government work. I haven't read Chomsky recently, but Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman (1925-2017) and Noam Chomsky is very good. His book is available for free as a PDF. If the topic interests you, you might want to investigate Edward S. Herman as well.

Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies from 1989 by Chomsky concerns political power using propaganda to distort and distract from major issues to maintain confusion and complicity, preventing real democracy from becoming effective. The title of this book borrows a phrase from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr. Sounds like another useful book.

I've been at several Chomsky talks [not recently, he's quite old now, 90+) and he is a very clear consistent thinker. His last published work was in 2016 and 2017. There is a film from 1992, Manufacturing Consent, available on YouTube. Quite good.

Who Rules America by ‎G. William Domhoff is excellent. First published in 1967 it has been updated half a dozen times over the years, so the title is not out of date. The basic idea, though, hasn't changed since 1967.

The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills 1956. Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities. The book might be 60 years old, but the way the power elite works is, you know, pretty much the same from decade to decade.