Comments on Dorf on Law: Who May Deem a Woman an Egg-White? A Karamazovian ...

提供大陸新娘婚姻介紹、相親、交友與協助來台、兩岸結婚相關證件辨理，你想娶到一位漂亮、不愛慕虛榮、勤勞...

2009-12-14T01:49:59.785-05:00

提供大陸新娘婚姻介紹、相親、交友與協助來台、兩岸結婚相關證件辨理，你想娶到一位漂亮、不愛慕虛榮、勤勞、甜美的外籍新娘，做為您的老婆嗎？本網站為直營網站，專為未婚男士婚友介紹並陪您前往越南、大陸、印尼,安排大陸新娘、越南新娘、外籍新娘相親活動,精選上千位佳麗，合法保證，全省服務，依照你喜歡的對象來排約相親，二十年金字招牌的婚友社位值得你的信賴。你想要娶大陸新娘嗎現在許多婚友社都有提供越南新娘的相親活動且一些小婚友社都改做外籍新娘的業務了

美しい中国女性と結婚できる！結婚相談所で、国際結婚、お見合いなどお気軽にご相談ください独身の方なら誰でも信頼できる結婚情報サービス、再婚・お見合い結婚を希望の方にも気軽に参加できます。結婚相談なら結婚相談所へようこそ！お見合いと結婚仲介のお手伝いをしてます。

您想要酒店經紀的工作和酒店經紀服務嗎有一個酒店經紀他超愛吃手工果醬的專業錦盒製作以及包裝盒的訂做服務現在最新科技隆乳技術在台灣發表了，由生醫學博仕海克拉斯教授研究隆乳的最新發明。你懷疑另一半有外遇嗎若真的有外遇的問題不用擔心我們是外遇查詢的專家你要尋人嗎沒有找不到的人我們是尋人高手我們是104尋人網104外遇徵信社及104評鑑網

Thanks for your post, Bob. I do think that men wh...

2009-11-25T00:20:30.717-05:00

Thanks for your post, Bob. I do think that men who argue that women have a moral obligation to take their pregnancies to term should be very careful to avoid being motivated by sexism. It may also be true that it is impossible for men who have been brought up with certain mores and assumptions to avoid being motivated by sexist assumptions. But this is reason for humility and diffidence, as Mike points out, not reason for removing oneself from the conversation.

It is true, I think, that if a man and a woman are both equally responsible for a conception that either one could have easily avoided through contraception, then both bear equal responsibility for the pregnancy. Consequently, as you say, if it were possible in the future for men to bear the cost of bringing the pregnancy to term, then it would be morally incumbent on at least some of them to do so. (Perhaps the hosting of the fetus could be shared serially, or both parents could flip a coin to decide who gets to host the fetus for the duration of the pregnancy.) But given the facts on the ground right now, it is not morally permissible for the mother to abort at least partly on the grounds that it is unfair that she, rather than the father, is the only one who can host the fetus. [Of course, this is all on the assumption (which I deny) that the fetus is a (moral) person from the moment of conception.]

How likely is it that the "induced reliance" argument is motivated by the sexist desire to avoid responsibility for pregnancy? Not likely, I think. The main reason is that the argument is based on a perfectly general principle of wide application, rather than on some ad hoc principle carved out of thin air for this particular purpose.

Thanks, Mike. I very much take your point and a...

2009-11-18T18:27:22.833-05:00

Thanks, Mike.

I very much take your point and am definitely aware of this line of plausible criticism. Relatedly, I'm mindful that the 'special pleading' ground that I offer for abstention might be indefinitely extensible and hence 'prove too much.' There's also, I think, a troubling resonance with the Nagelian 'What is It Like to Be a Bat?' form of epistemic skepticism here -- troubling both (a) because I might be assimilating women to bats or some other such form of putative 'radical otherness,' and (b) because I'm not actually as pessimistic as Nagel is in any event about the imaginability of bat experience.

For better or worse, however, this 'vicarious clean hands' argument remains the best articulation I seem to be able to come up with thus far, in explaining even to myself the puzzling sort of reluctance I feel to opine here. Doubtless the reluctance also is prompted, perhaps relatedly, in significant part by the ugly history of male dominance and at times even near 'ownership' of women in our own and many other societies. In light of that history, which so often involved the appropriation of women by men for procreative and related purposes, something in me very much wants to leave the lead roles in disputation over abortion to women themselves. It's not that I'm indifferent, or think it something to be 'left to the women in the kitchen' while the men folk smoke cigars and play billiards, but it is that I feel somehow as though I ought in all decency to take a back seat, qua man.

It might also be worth noting here that the 'clean hands doctrine' itself can be challenged along lines such as those you suggest here. After all, strictly speaking, my own guilt of a wrong of which I accuse another has no bearing on that other person's guilt. Yet the intuition to which the doctrine gives legal expression -- that there's something somehow perverse about 'the pot calling the kettle black' -- carries at least in my case a potent sort of force.

Thanks again,

Bob

I'm not sure I agree all the way down. It seems t...

2009-11-18T15:27:13.145-05:00

I'm not sure I agree all the way down. It seems to me that we are all able to make moral judgments, even about circumstances that could not appy to us. Suppose that there were a rare genetic disorder--call it "vampirism"--that makes some people unable to survive without drinking a pint of human blood on a weekly basis. I don't have the vampirism gene but can't I nonetheless say that it is morally impermissible for vampires to take the blood of others without their consent? Sure, the fact that I'll never be in the position of the vampires should make me humble and think twice before condemning them. But if, at the end of the day, my best moral judgment is that vampirism is wrong, I don't see why my moral conviction should be disregarded. After all, every moral judgment about the circumstances of others requires some degree of imagining the impossible, for none of us can ever be in exactly the same position as others. (Needless to say, none of this expresses a view about the morality of abortion, etc.)