Pope calls health care an "Inalienable Right". What's the right-wing spin?

[sqweels]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

Myself, I stop short of calling health care a right, but nevertheless something that a non-third-world country should be able to make affordable to everyone. Like education.

But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope's influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what's their take on this?

Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform?

[yorick73]

I think the pope would be well- served by boning up on his definition of "inalienable rights"

[Arnold Winkelried]

This is not a new idea. The United Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, says the same (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html#a25):

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Amnesty International, one of the leading human rights organizations, has expanded its work from working mostly on political rights (prisoners of conscience / political prisoners / death penalty / political refugees) to economic and social cultural rights (http://www.amnesty.org/en/demand-dignity), including health care.

When a society becomes mature enough that people are not starving or dying in wars all the time, it makes sense to me that health care should become a right, not a privilege. In the same way that education, once considered a privilege, is now a right.

[Chronos]

I don't know on this issue specifically, but I do know my dad's reaction when the Pope condemned the US' actions in Iraq: "Oh, the Pope is a decent man and all, and he means well, but he just doesn't understand the intricacies of foreign relations". And yes, my dad does call himself Catholic.

But hey, what could a head of state chosen for his wisdom, who routinely hobnobs directly with other world leaders, and who has teams of advisors on the subject possibly know about international relations that a retired self-employed electrician wouldn't?

[Blalron]

I think the pope would be well- served by boning up on his definition of "inalienable rights"

Sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights):

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists.

Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government.

[Czarcasm]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

Myself, I stop short of calling health care a right, but nevertheless something that a non-third-world country should be able to make affordable to everyone. Like education.

But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope's influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what's their take on this?

Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform?First President Obama has to make a statement either supporting or not supporting the Pope, then the right wing will issue their opposing opinion.

[Mr. Moto]

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.

[sqweels]

I just noticed I typed "and" inalienable right. :smack:

Mods?

[joebuck20]

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.

Oh fuck me, who the hell in this country (or any place that has UHC for that matter) is forcing or otherwise suggesting that doctors work for free or that the government confiscate their property. Provide some cites please.

[yorick73]

Sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights):

So you link to the Wiki page on natural rights and you still don't get it?

[Mr. Moto]

That wasn't my point. My point was that health care wasn't a right that naturally accrues to people just by virtue of their presence on the planet - it has to be provided to them by others, including doctors, government entities, churches and maybe taxpayers. And while I am not against people having health care, and indeed belong to a church that provided for such before many governments did, I won't go so far as to state that it is an inalienable right that we have - it is more accurately described as a duty that we should all shoulder.

[Lobohan]

That wasn't my point. My point was that health care wasn't a right that naturally accrues to people just by virtue of their presence on the planet - it has to be provided to them by others, including doctors, government entities, churches and maybe taxpayers. And while I am not against people having health care, and indeed belong to a church that provided for such before many governments did, I won't go so far as to state that it is an inalienable right that we have - it is more accurately described as a duty that we should all shoulder.I would suggest that all rights have to be provided by others.

[Mr. Moto]

I would suggest that all rights have to be provided by others.

So which of your rights would you like me to provide, and perhaps control.

[Bricker]

My take: His Holiness is mistaken.

Or possibly he's right, but only in the larger context. That is, if we truly had a society that implemented ALL of the Church's teachings, then health care would be a right.

[Lobohan]

So which of your rights would you like me to provide, and perhaps control.Your right to life ends at the arm of someone stronger than you. Our society grants these rights by creating an environment where people don't kill with impunity.

[Martin Hyde]

I don't know on this issue specifically, but I do know my dad's reaction when the Pope condemned the US' actions in Iraq: "Oh, the Pope is a decent man and all, and he means well, but he just doesn't understand the intricacies of foreign relations". And yes, my dad does call himself Catholic.

But hey, what could a head of state chosen for his wisdom, who routinely hobnobs directly with other world leaders, and who has teams of advisors on the subject possibly know about international relations that a retired self-employed electrician wouldn't?

Meh, Catholics have been ignoring the political opinions of the Papacy since almost its inception. We're a long ways removed from Kings crawling across the snow on their knees to beg forgiveness for having offended the pontiff.

Even most devoutly Catholic countries rejected the right of the papacy to make geopolitical decisions by the time of the Treaty of Westphalia (and in truth major Catholic powers like the Spanish/Austrian Hapsburg Empire had long set their agendas based on their self interest and not that of the pope's.)

[Lobohan]

My take: His Holiness is mistaken.Sorry, infallible. Say ten thousand Hail Marys. Owwww! I'ma da Pope!

[Bricker]

Sorry, infallible. Say ten thousand Hail Marys. Owwww! I'ma da Pope!

I know you're joking, but it's such a common misconception that I'm going to correct it anyway to avoid a reader getting whooshed.

The Pope is not considered infallible except in very specific and limited circumstances, of which this is not one.

[Mr. Moto]

Sorry, infallible. Say ten thousand Hail Marys. Owwww! I'ma da Pope!

Why are you using a stereotypical Italian accent, when there hasn't been an Italian pope since 1978?

[Mr. Moto]

Your right to life ends at the arm of someone stronger than you. Our society grants these rights by creating an environment where people don't kill with impunity.

Nope - you have it backward. Society doesn't grant the rights to individuals - individuals create society to protect those rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

[Blalron]

I know you're joking, but it's such a common misconception that I'm going to correct it anyway to avoid a reader getting whooshed.

The Pope is not considered infallible except in very specific and limited circumstances, of which this is not one.

I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions?

[Martin Hyde]

Your right to life ends at the arm of someone stronger than you. Our society grants these rights by creating an environment where people don't kill with impunity.

Not quite. Traditional Western legal philosophy takes the view that there are certain rights which we possess by virtue of being human. (Well, in truth traditional legal philosophy views these rights as being granted by god, but saying they are granted by nature works just as well and removes concerns some might have in our more secular, modern 21st century world.)

Governments should primarily be concerned with protecting these rights. Governments do not grant inalienable rights. This is very fundamental and actually if you take it in the wider context of history it makes perfect sense. The whole "point" that guys like Jefferson made were that if a government failed in its duty to protect natural rights, or even started to assail those rights itself, that government was no longer to be viewed valid--and that in fact the individual citizens would be totally correct to revolt against said government.

If you view government as the "grantor" of rights, it essentially means you're saying that on a philosophical level the government is the sole arbiter of what rights you have or what rights you don't have--and that your only recourse to abusive government is through advocating legal change. The major political revolution of the 18th and early 19th century instead argues that since there are inalienable rights, you can go beyond the confines of the state and its legal framework to protect them yourself. These are the justifications American colonists used to justify breaking away from King George and Parliament, and the justifications the French used in deposing the Bourbon monarchy.

Your other point, that you only "have the rights that you can defend" does not sync up with the traditional legal philosophy of natural rights. Under said philosophy if I kill you I haven't taken away your right to life, I have violated your right to life. Taking it away would mean I had some power to alter the "natural order of things", that I had to power to deem you "not entitled to life." Natural law as a philosophy doesn't really have that view of things.

For that reason it is highly suspect to call something that has to be created, funded, regulated and supported by government an "inalienable" right. Inalienable rights are better seen as the rights we're born with.

Natural law philosophy doesn't say much about rights like a "right to healthcare", meaning it's not a bad or good thing to establish such rights.

Of course, I don't support this view and have never supported this view, namely I don't really believe in natural law or natural rights. The only law of mankind is the law of chaos and strength. However, flowery things like the Pope's statement, various things politicians from Patrick Henry to FDR have said, and things like U.N. declarations are all based on the concepts of natural rights and natural law. So we should probably remain internally consistent, since the whole presumption is that "inalienable" rights are rights that no government can deny--and that government must protect to remain valid, it doesn't make sense to argue that a right that can only exist inside of a governmental system is inalienable.

I would also add that rights that some governments technically cannot provide whatsoever are hard for me to accept as a valid "inalienable right" under the concepts of "natural rights." Many, many countries in the world simply cannot provide universal health care, or if they do it will be in the form of a few clinics which most of the country cannot access because of distance and which is poorly staffed due to lack of funding. Compared to those countries the United States has far better healthcare even if it is not "universal." (Let's net even get into the specifics of how vague the U.N Declaration is--the fact that you can get emergency medical care no matter what in the United States could be seen as fulfilling the "duty" imposed by the declaration.)

[Martin Hyde]

I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions?

As a Catholic I'd just say he was wrong. Catholics have disagreed with Popes before. Catholics have actually waged war against Popes in the past.

[Lobohan]

Nope - you have it backward. Society doesn't grant the rights to individuals - individuals create society to protect those rights.You know that those words aren't magic, right? That's why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it.

Some poor woman in Somalia has only the rights she can make for herself.

[Lobohan]

Why are you using a stereotypical Italian accent, when there hasn't been an Italian pope since 1978?Obviously to honor Dom DeLuise in Johnny Dangerously.

[Blalron]

My take: His Holiness is mistaken.

Or possibly he's right, but only in the larger context. That is, if we truly had a society that implemented ALL of the Church's teachings, then health care would be a right.

Your position seems utterly bizarre to me. If you can't get the whole loaf of bread, you may as well go hungry? :confused:

[Arnold Winkelried]

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.You could say the same thing about educators (the example I had in my post.) Nonetheless, in the US, everyone is guaranteed a basic education (up to the high school level), regardless of income level. In the same way, everyone should have the right to health care. The only argument is, what is the minimum level of health care that a government (like the US) should guarantee its citizens?

[mlees]

You know that those words aren't magic, right? That's why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it.



What if the government itself decides you no longer have a right to that life?

The idea of inalienable rights are ones that NO government should be able to revoke.

[mlees]

I ask this question out of morbid curiosity: if the Pope made an Ex Cathedra statement about UHC being an inalienable right and the duty of every good Christian to support, would you be singing a different tune on these boards about it, or would you just change religions?

Plenty of (American) Catholics don't follow Rome's guidance on birth control, yet they still consider themselves Catholic.

[Lobohan]

Not quite. Traditional Western legal philosophy takes the view that there are certain rights which we possess by virtue of being human.I'm not talking about Traditional Western legal philosophy. I'm talking about reality. Saying that we have innate rights is silly.

[Martin Hyde]

I'm not talking about Traditional Western legal philosophy. I'm talking about reality. Saying that we have innate rights is silly.

I agree, that's why the U.N. Declaration is meaningless. That's why the Pope's comment is meaningless. However, in the context of inalienable rights (which conjures up natural law and Western legal tradition, unavoidably) it still doesn't make sense to say health care is an "inalienable" right.

[Lobohan]

What if the government itself decides you no longer have a right to that life?

The idea of inalienable rights are ones that NO government should be able to revoke.But the government could. Not ours hopefully, but if you're a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want.

The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have.

[Martin Hyde]

You know that those words aren't magic, right? That's why I used the right to life. That it is a right we all should have I agree. But it is provided by the government. Otherwise anyone who wanted to could take it.

Some poor woman in Somalia has only the rights she can make for herself.

It's protected by yourself, not by government. Government can kill you just as easily as a brigand.

The only real thing you're entitled to in this world is that which you can defend yourself. Buying into the concept that government is capable of omnipotent protective services, or that it is benevolent, is probably one of the more dangerous thoughts one can have.

Probably harmless in most first world countries, but deadly for most of the human population.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Plenty of (American) Catholics don't follow Rome's guidance on birth control, yet they still consider themselves Catholic.
One small aside: I've always thought that you can tell much more about a person, not by what religion they claim to be, but by which portions of their religion they think are important, and which ones they think it is acceptable to ignore.

[Martin Hyde]

But the government could. Not ours hopefully, but if you're a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want.

The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have.

Then it's stupid to bring up the Pope or the U.N. Declaration, no one living today established the Papacy, no one voted the U.N into power. They are both essentially just prominent NGOs, only vaguely accountable to anyone.

If your argument is that government protects the rights we all agree we want to have, then it's basically an inescapable conclusion of that logic that the only countries that should have universal healthcare are the countries that want it.

[John Mace]

But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope's influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what's their take on this?
Which Republicans would these be? Southern Baptists?

Anyway, this is nothing new. See: death penalty.

At any rate, an inalenable right is something like free speech. We posses by virtue of our being human, and no one has to lift a finger to give it to us. Not so with health care or diamonds.

Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform?

I'll let Bricker explain the difference involved here wrt RC doctrine. He knows it a lot better than I do.

[mlees]

But the government could. Not ours hopefully, but if you're a woman under the Taliban you can talk about rights all you want.

The fact is the reason we establish governments that are answerable to the people is so that we can protect the rights we all agree we want to have.

I agree that in a practical sense, the power ratio of individual versus an entire government is a bit skewed, so it definately appears as if the government is necessary for rights to exist.

Us outsiders consider the Taliban government "bad" because it does not afford (protect?) various rights of it's female citizens, even though those rights are not even codified in some type of Consitution or legal code. (In fact, the Taliban's laws state some of the opposite.)

Think about that. We call them wrong/bad for not doing something they don't have codified. Why? Because we assume certain rights as fundamental to a free human even without (or in spite of contrary) codification.

[Arnold Winkelried]

If your argument is that government protects the rights we all agree we want to have, then it's basically an inescapable conclusion of that logic that the only countries that should have universal healthcare are the countries that want it.Well, my argument would be that there are some rights that all governments should respect (and / or provide) to the best of their ability, and health care is one of those rights. Different regions of the world, at different wealth levels, may not have the same level, but the right should still exist. Same as, for example, education (already mentioned), right to vote, freedom of religion, etc.

[Markxxx]

Health care should be a matter of public policy just as police protection and fire protection is. We pay taxes for that. No one says "I paid taxes for 50 years and never once had to call out the fire dept to put out a fire. I want my money back."

I think this is what the pope is getting at.

As for doctors working for a wage? Well so do fire fighters and policemen and the President of the USA. You think Mr Obama couldn't make more as a private citizen?

[John Mace]

You could say the same thing about educators (the example I had in my post.) Nonetheless, in the US, everyone is guaranteed a basic education (up to the high school level), regardless of income level. In the same way, everyone should have the right to health care. The only argument is, what is the minimum level of health care that a government (like the US) should guarantee its citizens?

Nope. We, as a society, decided through the legislative process to provide public education up thru HS. It's not in the BoR or any other part of the constitution. Same with health care. We can decide, thru the legislative process to provide everyone with some amount of health care, but we can decide not to as well. Nothing in the constitution guarantees the "right" to public education or health care.

[Martin Hyde]

Health care should be a matter of public policy just as police protection and fire protection is. We pay taxes for that. No one says "I paid taxes for 50 years and never once had to call out the fire dept to put out a fire. I want my money back."

I think this is what the pope is getting at.

As for doctors working for a wage? Well so do fire fighters and policemen and the President of the USA. You think Mr Obama couldn't make more as a private citizen?

Health care is a very valid argument as part of a public policy debate.

[Lobohan]

Then it's stupid to bring up the Pope or the U.N. Declaration, no one living today established the Papacy, no one voted the U.N into power. They are both essentially just prominent NGOs, only vaguely accountable to anyone.I'm not saying the Pope is right. If anything it's funny that so many of the reflexively anti health-care reform people now have to deal with the Pope working against them. I find it yummy.

If your argument is that government protects the rights we all agree we want to have, then it's basically an inescapable conclusion of that logic that the only countries that should have universal healthcare are the countries that want it.We are perfecting the country over time. It's far from an inescapable conclusion to assume that we are done. If our culture were static women wouldn't vote, blacks would be slaves and wigs would be de rigueur.

We should have UHC, and we will someday, but there are still plenty of people working against it. Give it time. Your children will live in a world where gays get married, and healthcare is a right.

[Revenant Threshold]

It's protected by yourself, not by government. Government can kill you just as easily as a brigand.

The only real thing you're entitled to in this world is that which you can defend yourself. Buying into the concept that government is capable of omnipotent protective services, or that it is benevolent, is probably one of the more dangerous thoughts one can have.

Probably harmless in most first world countries, but deadly for most of the human population. That strikes me as illogical. After all, I can kill me far more easily than can the government. I am by far more capricious, am constrained in killing myself by fewer alternate interests, and have no media groups following my actions that might learn of my plans. I can't be held to account for my crime. If the government is a weak or unreliable entity as regards protecting me, fair enough, but it's unreasonable to claim that we, personally, are much better, because we're not.

[Martin Hyde]

I'm not saying the Pope is right. If anything it's funny that so many of the reflexively anti health-care reform people now have to deal with the Pope working against them. I find it yummy.

Why? There probably isn't very much of a sync up between "people opposed to health care" and "people who hang on the Pope's every word." Even in America Catholics are pretty split between the parties. They may be more socially conservative on average, but Catholicism has a very long history of being very socialist-leaning economically. Hell, even before the formal doctrines of socialism were laid to print.

We are perfecting the country over time. It's far from an inescapable conclusion to assume that we are done. If our culture were static women wouldn't vote, blacks would be slaves and wigs would be de rigueur.

We should have UHC, and we will someday, but there are still plenty of people working against it. Give it time. Your children will live in a world where gays get married, and healthcare is a right.

Mm, I don't have children and since I'm an old man I doubt I ever will. (And I already live in a world where gays get married--and so do you.)

Secondly, I don't believe "we" (who is we? You and a few specific people? You and people who agree with you? Your political party? Everyone?) are perfecting anything. Societies change over time, period. I don't believe the "active" efforts of people have as much to do with it as the sheer weight of millions of individuals slowly becoming more and more different from previous generations with each successive generation.

Your comments are really nonsensical and all over the place.

Let's look at a specific case, at one points blacks did not have the right to vote. Is it your argument at that time that a) blacks had the right to vote but it was denied to them, or that b) blacks did not have the right to vote, because government had not yet created it?

Are rights a goal or are they factual things?

You also say that we create governments to "create" the rights that we want. Then when I say "well, that means that countries that do not have UHC do not want it" you say "well it's a process." I agree that change is a gradual process. However, I would also say that the reason blacks weren't voting in 1850 in the United States is because Americans did not want them to vote.

Honestly I think you'd make a lot more sense if you would stop using the word "rights" and instead use the word "policies" because that's honestly what you're talking about and the word that actually makes sense in the broader context of what you're saying.

People who believe in rights generally have some sort of philosophical framework from which they believe those rights are derived. Your description of a right is essentially synonymous with anyone else's description of "government policy."

[John Mace]

I'm not saying the Pope is right. If anything it's funny that so many of the reflexively anti health-care reform people now have to deal with the Pope working against them. I find it yummy.

What about the non-reflexively anti health care people? Or aren't there any of those. What about the reflexively and non-reflexively pro-choice people? Do you find it "yummy" that they have to deal with the Pope working against them?

I'm just struggling to understand why anyone cares what the Pope says about public policy. He's a religious, not a political leader. It's of no significance to disagree with him. He's not even saying Catholics are gong to hell if they vote against health care reform.

Once again, there is no "gotcha" here.

[Martin Hyde]

That strikes me as illogical. After all, I can kill me far more easily than can the government. I am by far more capricious, am constrained in killing myself by fewer alternate interests, and have no media groups following my actions that might learn of my plans. I can't be held to account for my crime. If the government is a weak or unreliable entity as regards protecting me, fair enough, but it's unreasonable to claim that we, personally, are much better, because we're not.

I didn't say that you were better or worse at protecting things than a government.

What I said was that the only thing you really have in this world is that which you can protect.

Sure, my house is protected far better by our system of laws and my government than it is protected by me personally. But that's all really an illusion. If a massive comet hit tomorrow that blocked out the sun for 10 years and killed 90% of the world's population it'd show that governments can change rapidly and you can quickly find that government can steal from you and take from you just as it can protect you. If you don't have the strength to protect what is yours, it can always be taken from you by superior strength.

What's it all mean? That individually humans are incredibly fragile, everything we hold is fragile, and we are safe based on societal whim and a remarkable period of historical stability, that in the grand scheme of human history is but a small part and could easily be wiped away on the morrow.

[Martin Hyde]

Just a quick dosage of facts, from the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, the political leanings of American Catholics:


23% Republican
10% Lean Republican
10% Independent
15% Lean Democratic
33% Democratic
9% Other / No preference

[Martin Hyde]

Also, from the same report:

Views About Size of Government Among Catholics


39% Smaller government, fewer services
51% Bigger government, more services
4% Depends
6% Don't know

[Lobohan]

Why? There probably isn't very much of a sync up between "people opposed to health care" and "people who hang on the Pope's every word." Even in America Catholics are pretty split between the parties. They may be more socially conservative on average, but Catholicism has a very long history of being very socialist-leaning economically. Hell, even before the formal doctrines of socialism were laid to print.I know, but a lot of Catholics forget that.

Mm, I don't have children and since I'm an old man I doubt I ever will. (And I already live in a world where gays get married--and so do you.)Not with federal rights they don't.

Secondly, I don't believe "we" (who is we? You and a few specific people? You and people who agree with you? Your political party? Everyone?) are perfecting anything. Societies change over time, period. I don't believe the "active" efforts of people have as much to do with it as the sheer weight of millions of individuals slowly becoming more and more different from previous generations with each successive generation.Well, if you believed in innate rights we're perfecting it. Liberty wasn't available to blacks at the outset. Women were certainly limited in their pursuit of happiness. We're getting better, fighting the stupidity of days past.

Your comments are really nonsensical and all over the place.Possible. Not likely, but possible.

Let's look at a specific case, at one points blacks did not have the right to vote. Is it your argument at that time that a) blacks had the right to vote but it was denied to them, or that b) blacks did not have the right to vote, because government had not yet created it?We agree that they should, because the golden rule in incorporated into us by evolution. But how can they be said to have those rights when they don't?

Are rights a goal or are they factual things?Rights aren't tangible. They aren't bestowed by God. They are things we agree on and protect because we think they are the correct thing to do.

You also say that we create governments to "create" the rights that we want. Then when I say "well, that means that countries that do not have UHC do not want it" you say "well it's a process." I agree that change is a gradual process. However, I would also say that the reason blacks weren't voting in 1850 in the United States is because Americans did not want them to vote. Yeah. So where was their right then? People do want health care reform when asked about it piecemeal. But misinformation by political operatives has muddied the field. People know that sick people shouldn't be ruined because of one illness. Or unable to purchase insurance at all because of a previous illness. But as of yet many haven't been convinced that UHC is the most logical way to that end.

Honestly I think you'd make a lot more sense if you would stop using the word "rights" and instead use the word "policies" because that's honestly what you're talking about and the word that actually makes sense in the broader context of what you're saying.Rights created by policies. Enforced by them. They are an emergent property of them.

People who believe in rights generally have some sort of philosophical framework from which they believe those rights are derived. Your description of a right is essentially synonymous with anyone else's description of "government policy."As I say, a stone age hunter has the right to life that he can procure. Working together we've enshrined this right into the fabric of our government. That's a good thing. It doesn't lessen it.

Evolution has built into us a cooperative capacity because we're social animals. To the extent that rights have a non governmental existence it is in our built in desires to see certain things done.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Nope. We, as a society, decided through the legislative process to provide public education up thru HS. It's not in the BoR or any other part of the constitution. Same with health care.
I'm not using the word "should" to mean "legally obligated". I'm talking about what a modern government should provide to its people. The USA is a part of the UN, and the general assembly of the UN agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of course you can always come back later and say "we didn't really mean it", but the UDHR is a good basis for determining what your standards are.

[Lobohan]

What about the non-reflexively anti health care people?What about them?

Or aren't there any of those.Are you of the opinion that "so many" means everyone? I didn't intend to use it that way.

What about the reflexively and non-reflexively pro-choice people? Do you find it "yummy" that they have to deal with the Pope working against them?Sure. Mostly because many of them are actually Catholic.

I'm just struggling to understand why anyone cares what the Pope says about public policy. He's a religious, not a political leader. It's of no significance to disagree with him. He's not even saying Catholics are gong to hell if they vote against health care reform.He is, in the larger sense, of no consequence. He's just a deluded old man. However, he does wield a lot of temporal power. He is hardly not a major player on the world stage.

Once again, there is no "gotcha" here.I don't really think there is in fact a gotcha. I'd agree.

[Revenant Threshold]

I didn't say that you were better or worse at protecting things than a government.

What I said was that the only thing you really have in this world is that which you can protect.

Sure, my house is protected far better by our system of laws and my government than it is protected by me personally. But that's all really an illusion. And my point is that that's true of me, too. If the protection of my person or what I own by the government is simply an illusion, so much greater an illusion is it that I am capable of protecting those things. It doesn't take a massive comet killing 90% of the world's population to change my mind about me. Really, it makes much more sense to me to declare (if I had to pick between the two) that the only thing I really have in this world is that which the government can protect.

[Blalron]

Nope. We, as a society, decided through the legislative process to provide public education up thru HS. It's not in the BoR or any other part of the constitution. Same with health care. We can decide, thru the legislative process to provide everyone with some amount of health care, but we can decide not to as well. Nothing in the constitution guarantees the "right" to public education or health care.

I can think of one example where the Constitution affirmatively requires the government to provide people with something: The indigent have the right to be provided with an attorney if they are accused of a crime.

[Martin Hyde]

I know, but a lot of Catholics forget that.

Whatever, I've already presented some evidence showing that Catholics are left leaning and big-government left leaning at that. (As a life long Catholic I'll say that is very typical of my experience, I've always felt very far to the right from most of my fellow parishioners on economic matters, while being a bit to the left of them on social matters.)

Not with federal rights they don't.

Yeah, but marriage wasn't strictly defined. Gays can get married with various degrees of recognition in the United States--and since you said "a world in which gays will marry" I'll point to the 96% of the world's population that doesn't live in the United States and remind you they have their own laws.

Well, if you believed in innate rights we're perfecting it. Liberty wasn't available to blacks at the outset. Women were certainly limited in their pursuit of happiness. We're getting better, fighting the stupidity of days past.

I would agree we've had social progress. However as I said, I don't believe in innate rights. I would ask though, what is your concept of a right? You tie it so closely to existing government policies that you essentially seem to be saying rights can only exist in the framework of specific countries and specific countries legal system.

So you are essentially saying that you (someone who I believe advocates UHC) would view UHC as a "right" in countries where that policy has been enacted, but "not a right" in countries where it hasn't been enacted. As someone who believes it "should" be a right, you thus advocate that the right should be "created" in countries where it doesn't already exist.

That seems very, very alien to me. I don't know of any major doctrine or philosophy that views rights that way. What makes more sense is the more mainstream view of universal rights (I'll quickly add a again that I think rights are a meaningless concept--but I'm arguing from the perspective of the majority and tradition in regards to the concept, not based on my own views), this view would thus hold not that blacks during the 1960s lacked rights but that they were fighting for equal protection of their rights. I don't think MLK Jr. was fighting for the right to vote, he was fighting to protect a right that he already had.

Or an even more clear-cut example, various Jewish groups that actively fought the Nazis during World War II. I don't think it makes sense to say the Jews lacked a right to life rather it makes sense to say that a powerful government was infringing on that right, and that the militant Jewish resistance groups were fighting to protect that right. I don't believe the right just vanished because a government said it did...that would make sense if we were talking about policies, but rights have never been advocated by anyone I've ever heard of (other than you) as something governments can create and destroy with the whims of the mob.

We agree that they should, because the golden rule in incorporated into us by evolution. But how can they be said to have those rights when they don't?

Because a right doesn't have to be viewed the way you are viewing it. Most people way say blacks had a right to freedom, even while enslaved. Enslaving them just violated their innate right, it did not destroy it. If it destroyed it then you're essentially tying rights solely to the exact present tense situation, such that rights have no meaning at all since the moment they are violated they no longer exist...

Rights aren't tangible. They aren't bestowed by God. They are things we agree on and protect because we think they are the correct thing to do.

So rights are only things that people agree on? I'd hate to be in the minority...

[John Mace]

He is, in the larger sense, of no consequence. He's just a deluded old man. However, he does wield a lot of temporal power. He is hardly not a major player on the world stage.

He gets a lot of attention, but I can't see that he's actually influential in policy making. Look at the hot button issue of abortion. Catholics are divided between pro-choice and pro-life in pretty much the same % as non-Catholics. The RCC has no problem with evolution, and yet you don't see Catholics leading the charge against the Creationists. Americans, at least, seem very capable of compartmentalizing their political beliefs and the official RCC positions.

[Martin Hyde]

Sure. Mostly because many of them are actually Catholic.

Yeah, but as some sort of "gotcha" this makes no sense. In the context of American politics you can't really say "a statistically relevant portion of anti-UHC persons are Catholic." Note that I say 'statistically relevant, which means--a large portion of anti-UHC types are Catholic, but if you compare the % of anti-UHC people who are Catholic to the % of people who are Catholic in the country at large, you'll probably find it is a similar percentage. If anything, you'll find a smaller % of anti-UHC types are Catholic than % of people who are Catholic in the country at large.

Your "gotcha" and "finding it yummy" that the Pope advocates UHC really only would make sense if there was some irony or something in this.

I can see it if the Pope came out saying, "I support a woman's right to choose", Catholics are a core part of the pro-life crowd. With UHC, it really makes no sense.

What I honestly think has happened is your probably under some weird impression that because Catholics and the Pope are anti-abortion and anti-birth control they are hard core right wingers. In truth, that doesn't really sync with any polls done on Catholics. They tend to be more Democrat than Republic, they tend to support social policies and not fiscal conservatism, they tend to believe in entitlement programs. They tend more towards anti-war activities than the population at large, they tend more towards anti-death penalty activities than the population at large.

Essentially Catholics are socially conservative and economically quite liberal. Of course, Catholics are the single largest religious group in the United States and because of the nature of the religion many life long Catholics are only minor adherents but aren't willing to totally shed association with the church. So to speak as I just did about Catholics is only relevant in extremely broad strokes, in the real world there is of course much more nuance.

Your reaction would only really make sense if the Pope came out in support of abortions, gay marriage, or birth control. Since Catholics are left leaning, it doesn't really make sense to act like this thing the Pope has said is some sort of "gotcha."

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Fortunately I am Presbyterian and do not have to worry about what a Pope says. :D

[Shodan]

Fortunately I am Presbyterian and do not have to worry about what a Pope says. :DAnd I am what C. S. Lewis would call a "mere Christian" and worry even less.

I look forward to Der Trihs condemning this evil Christian, motivated as he is by virulent hatred for all mankind, for this blatant attempt to force his religious beliefs down the throat of a secular society.

:D

Regards,
Shodan

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm not sure that any spin is necessary beyond "he's wrong".

Although he isn't.

[Lobohan]

Whatever, I've already presented some evidence showing that Catholics are left leaning and big-government left leaning at that. (As a life long Catholic I'll say that is very typical of my experience, I've always felt very far to the right from most of my fellow parishioners on economic matters, while being a bit to the left of them on social matters.)Sure. But now the economically right Catholics have something working against them. Funny.

Yeah, but marriage wasn't strictly defined. Gays can get married with various degrees of recognition in the United States--and since you said "a world in which gays will marry" I'll point to the 96% of the world's population that doesn't live in the United States and remind you they have their own laws.Sure. It's going more to allowing it than not. I was talking about increasing social justice.

I would agree we've had social progress. However as I said, I don't believe in innate rights. I would ask though, what is your concept of a right? You tie it so closely to existing government policies that you essentially seem to be saying rights can only exist in the framework of specific countries and specific countries legal system.What kind of atoms are rights made of? How much space do they take up? As I say, they are an artifact of our culture. They have no existence without it. A tiger cornering you in a forest has no concept of your right to life. To the extent it exists, it needs to be enforced.

So you are essentially saying that you (someone who I believe advocates UHC) would view UHC as a "right" in countries where that policy has been enacted, but "not a right" in countries where it hasn't been enacted. As someone who believes it "should" be a right, you thus advocate that the right should be "created" in countries where it doesn't already exist.Of course it would be created. You, as a stone-age hunter would have no right to liberty. Anyone stronger than you could take it away and enslave you.

That seems very, very alien to me. I don't know of any major doctrine or philosophy that views rights that way. What makes more sense is the more mainstream view of universal rights (I'll quickly add a again that I think rights are a meaningless concept--but I'm arguing from the perspective of the majority and tradition in regards to the concept, not based on my own views), this view would thus hold not that blacks during the 1960s lacked rights but that they were fighting for equal protection of their rights. I don't think MLK Jr. was fighting for the right to vote, he was fighting to protect a right that he already had.If he had a right to do it, he could have done it. He was fighting to enshrine that right into our culture so he could enjoy it.

Or an even more clear-cut example, various Jewish groups that actively fought the Nazis during World War II. I don't think it makes sense to say the Jews lacked a right to life rather it makes sense to say that a powerful government was infringing on that right, and that the militant Jewish resistance groups were fighting to protect that right. I don't believe the right just vanished because a government said it did...that would make sense if we were talking about policies, but rights have never been advocated by anyone I've ever heard of (other than you) as something governments can create and destroy with the whims of the mob.A totalitarian alien race takes over Earth in a day. You are required to check in to a featureless black orb in your home every day where your memories are read and anti-alien thoughts are recorded and punished. If you don't show up for a reading you are killed by a poison that is running through your system and is transmuted into a benign form by the orb.

Every human on Earth lives like this. Where is their right to liberty? Where is it? It doesn't exist. Now a group can get together and topple the alien government and establish a right to liberty. And good on them. But until you can enforce it, it does't exist. People want liberty. Just like people want sex and food. The want isn't the right. The protected force behind it is what gives it meaning.

Because a right doesn't have to be viewed the way you are viewing it. Most people way say blacks had a right to freedom, even while enslaved. Enslaving them just violated their innate right, it did not destroy it. If it destroyed it then you're essentially tying rights solely to the exact present tense situation, such that rights have no meaning at all since the moment they are violated they no longer exist...As I say, we want freedom for everyone because we're a social species. The desire for it is in our genes. The desire becomes something meaningful when there is a punishment for denying it to others.

So rights are only things that people agree on? I'd hate to be in the minority...Not everyone has to agree. For instance many apparently don't agree that you have the right not to be virtually strip searched at the airport.

It depends on what the laws in place say. If most people decided they didn't want the right to firearms, we'd still have it until someone legislated it away.

[Captain Amazing]

Sure. But now the economically right Catholics have something working against them. Funny.

Yes, but that's hardly new. They've had something working against them since, well, last year, when Benedict issued Caritas in Veritate, where he said that a market economy based on self interest doesn't work, that the government should make it a primary goal to decrease unemployment, and spoke out against patents on medical drugs and for protecting the environment.

Or 1961 encyclical Mater Et Magistra[/b], which said that it was a country's moral duty to mandate a living wage, a progressive income tax system, government pension and large amounts of foreign aid paid by rich countries to equalize the global disparity of wealth.

Or even earlier, 1931's [i]Quadragesimo Anno, when Pius Xi condemned unrestrained capitalism and called for redistribution of wealth when necessary to serve the public good.

Or for that matter, 1891's Rerum Novarum, where Leo XIII said that workers have the right to form unions and strike and be paid a living wage. Since at least 1891, the Catholic church has been speaking out against exploitation of workers and that states had a moral duty to care about the welfare of their citizens, and employers, their employees.

[acetylene]

Catholics have actually waged war against Popes in the past.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm afraid Google is not my friend here.

[The Tao's Revenge]

So which of your rights would you like me to provide, and perhaps control.

You personally, are you a dictator or something? Most of the countries that recognize inalienable rights are democratic republics. This means that rights are provided, and maintained by the people through agents employed in a hiring process known as an "election".


Equal treatment under the law is an inalienable right, yet it was provided in the south by the federal government.

The right to be secure in your person is provided by police protection, and the courts make sure the police themselves do not abuse that right. The courts themselves are watched by the people, and as was learned the 1930s Supreme court, even those appointed for life can be disposed if they piss enough people off.


What is a freedom of the press without police to protect the press from vandalism, fear, and intimidation? What of speech without the same protection? Religion?

The point is clear, are rights exist on paper, and in our minds, but they need real action to be maintained or the stronger will trample the weaker.

[Stratocaster]

Rights are not provided. They are possessed by virtue of being human, and all true rights are some form of the right to be left alone. Anything that requires someone else to provide the benefit is not a right. It could be good social policy, it could be a damn good thing to support. But it doesn't involve a right. Some people in this thread seem to be confusing a government's legitimate duty to defend rights (i.e., stop people from stepping on another's rights) and providing a specific benefit that would not exist without that accommodation. Inalienable rights can be violated, but they are not provided. You're born with them (if you believe in such things).

I always invoke the desert island test. You're on a desert island, just you and another person. Could your right to freely express yourself be violated? Your right to practice your religious beliefs? Of course they could. But they would still be your rights.

Suppose on that island you got cancer. Your island mate is not a doctor. Are your rights being violated, since no one is caring for your health concern? Who is violating them, exactly? Say you're a ten-year old kid. Is your right to an education being violated? Who is violating it?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Rights are not provided. They are possessed by virtue of being human, and all true rights are some form of the right to be left alone. Anything that requires someone else to provide the benefit is not a right. It could be good social policy, it could be a damn good thing to support. But it doesn't involve a right. Some people in this thread seem to be confusing a government's legitimate duty to defend rights (i.e., stop people from stepping on another's rights) and providing a specific benefit that would not exist without that accommodation. Inalienable rights can be violated, but they are not provided. You're born with them (if you believe in such things).

I always invoke the desert island test. You're on a desert island, just you and another person. Could your right to freely express yourself be violated? Your right to practice your religious beliefs? Of course they could. But they would still be your rights.

Suppose on that island you got cancer. Your island mate is not a doctor. Are your rights being violated, since no one is caring for your health concern? Who is violating them, exactly? Say you're a ten-year old kid. Is your right to an education being violated? Who is violating it?



Your mate thinks you've committed a crime, and wants to try you, but a jury of your peers is nonexistent since there's two of you. Right to trial by jury nonexistent?

Clearly some rights are provided as a duty by fellow citizens.

[Stratocaster]

Your mate thinks you've committed a crime, and wants to try you, but a jury of your peers is nonexistent since there's two of you. Right to trial by jury nonexistent?

Clearly some rights are provided as a duty by fellow citizens.I disagree. I don't think there's an inalienable right to a jury of your peers. We may like to describe it thusly, but it's a wise public policy, and nothing more. If there is a right at this policy's foundation, it's the right not to be detained when you've offered no offense, your freedom to do as you'd like when you've harmed no one. That right exists, so when someone believes you've committed an offense, we take care not to proceed in an irresponsible manner.

Like all rights, it is not considered absolute and it may conflict with another's legitimate right. So, our social policy is that we only detain if there's cause to do so, only do so in following an agreed-upon due process. But the policy we decided upon is just the one we liked best. You might just as well say someone has a right to a trial before the king. It speaks to the same concern and human right (just not as well, we think). But on the desert island, I still have the right to be left alone--and so does my mate, who may well have had his right infringed by some crime. Those conflicts require policies to sort them out, but they're just policies and processes. They are practical necessities.

[Martin Hyde]

Yes, but that's hardly new. They've had something working against them since, well, last year, when Benedict issued Caritas in Veritate, where he said that a market economy based on self interest doesn't work, that the government should make it a primary goal to decrease unemployment, and spoke out against patents on medical drugs and for protecting the environment.

Or 1961 encyclical Mater Et Magistra[/b], which said that it was a country's moral duty to mandate a living wage, a progressive income tax system, government pension and large amounts of foreign aid paid by rich countries to equalize the global disparity of wealth.

Or even earlier, 1931's [i]Quadragesimo Anno, when Pius Xi condemned unrestrained capitalism and called for redistribution of wealth when necessary to serve the public good.

Or for that matter, 1891's Rerum Novarum, where Leo XIII said that workers have the right to form unions and strike and be paid a living wage. Since at least 1891, the Catholic church has been speaking out against exploitation of workers and that states had a moral duty to care about the welfare of their citizens, and employers, their employees.

As a right wing Catholic who grew up during the Cold War, I'd also add that the RCC as a whole was very, very supportive of Communism and its principles for most of the 20th century.

[Martin Hyde]

Could you elaborate on this? I'm afraid Google is not my friend here.

Many many times.

I'll point to one specific example which will serve to prove the point. In 1527 the armies of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V sacked Rome and bottled the Pope up in the Castel Sant'Angelo. While some of the troops were reportedly pro-Luther (his reform movement had just started a decade or so prior to this incident) many of them were of course devout Catholics--obvious since they were soldiers serving under the Holy Roman Emperor.

Charles V himself was a devout Catholic, and while he may have not wanted the sack of Rome (Rome was arguably sacked primarily because the Emperor had failed to pay his soldiers so they demanded spoils), he was waging direct war against the papacy in the Italian peninsula, so it's obvious he had no qualms about fighting directly against the papacy.

Also during the "War of the Eight Saints", the city of Florence was in direct armed conflict against the Papacy. There are actually tons of examples throughout history, up until the early 19th century the Pope was first and foremost a temporal prince, with secular designs and dynastic desires. There's very little defense for the behavior and actions of most popes from the beginning of the middle ages up through the end of the renaissance. Although isolated Popes in that span were good and righteous men who held their office in good faith, they were the exception and not the rule.

[Martin Hyde]

What kind of atoms are rights made of? How much space do they take up? As I say, they are an artifact of our culture. They have no existence without it. A tiger cornering you in a forest has no concept of your right to life. To the extent it exists, it needs to be enforced.

What atoms are governments made of? Laws? Are you now arguing you only believe in things that have an easy physical representation?

I'm honestly tired of playing devil's advocate on this. My position has always been that humans really don't have rights, not innate or government created. We have privileges under the law and we have protections under the law. How much of either is based on a host of things (cultural, political, legal, economic et al.) and there is nothing innate about any of it.

However, I will say that I find it very odd someone like yourself who obviously believes very strongly in the concept of rights, believes they only exist as the creation of a government. To me that seems to be essentially the exact opposite of the entire history of the use of the word "rights."

I'll say it again (but you've not really addressed it yet), you seem to be arguing a position in which a right only exists in the direct present tense, and only so long as you are actually able to exercise it without any infringements whatsoever. So in your world, if I kidnapped you then you'd say "you no longer had the right to liberty." I find that highly strange.

Essentially you seem to view rights as a "state machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_machine)" and not as a "legal protection" which is what most people view a right as.

[Magiver]

Was this Pope's decree followed by an announcement of a papal garage sale?

[Captain Amazing]

Was this Pope's decree followed by an announcement of a papal garage sale?

The employees of the Vatican are already guaranteed health care by the Italian National Health Service.

[rayman5321]

I think the pope would be well- served by boning up on his definition of "inalienable rights"

Agreed!

[Candyman74]

But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope's influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what's their take on this?

Their take? Easy. An "inalienable right" is whatever right-wing Americans say it is.

[John Mace]

I think the pope would be well- served by boning...
Hey, don't give him any ideas!

[acetylene]

Many many times.

<Snip>

Although isolated Popes in that span were good and righteous men who held their office in good faith, they were the exception and not the rule.

Thank you. Ignorance fought.

[Magiver]

The employees of the Vatican are already guaranteed health care by the Italian National Health Service.
I was under the impression the Pope represented all Catholics.

[yorick73]

Hey, don't give him any ideas!

I think he would be well served by boning...and keeping his nose out of government business.

[John Mace]

I think he would be well served by boning...and keeping his nose out of government business.
I'm just worried about who the bonee might be.

[Turtledove]

The question of universal health care (UHC) should not be called a right. Other than public education which is necessary to keep tyrants at bay, our "rights" are really attempts to keep something from happening TO us...e.g. right to liberty is a "right" keeping others from doing things TO us...our "right" to happiness is our solution to our life choices...not others deciding FOR us. The right of religion is our choice...not someone else deciding for us, etc.

The "right" to health care would DEMAND that others must do something for us, to us or must help pay for our care. We have no such "right" to demand care from others or that others may DEMAND care from us (whether that be money, time or talent). I may choose to help others....but that MUST be MY choice.

[JRDelirious]

As a right wing Catholic who grew up during the Cold War, I'd also add that the RCC as a whole was very, very supportive of Communism and its principles for most of the 20th century.

:confused::confused::confused: Whaaaa...

OK, I think I just felt a massive whoosh overhead, Martin may owe me, the whooshee, a new hat if he doesn't explain that one...

[Raiko]

who cares what the effing pope thinks? sorry that wasnt very helpful, I don't have a different opinion on this but still felt like posting. :D

[Damuri Ajashi]

I think the pope would be well- served by boning up on his definition of "inalienable rights"

Well, perhaps God-given right is more appropriate.

[Damuri Ajashi]

As a Catholic I'd just say he was wrong. Catholics have disagreed with Popes before. Catholics have actually waged war against Popes in the past.

I didn't realize that Catholics were allowed to pick and choose which parts of the Catholic dogma to accept. Can a Catholic just decide the Pope is wrong on abortion too?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Just a quick dosage of facts, from the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, the political leanings of American Catholics:


23% Republican
10% Lean Republican
10% Independent
15% Lean Democratic
33% Democratic
9% Other / No preference


A good catholic would be a pro-life Democrat.

[BrightNShiny]

As a Catholic I'd just say he was wrong. Catholics have disagreed with Popes before. Catholics have actually waged war against Popes in the past.

So, the Pope, who has spent his career thinking about Catholic religious teaching, and who has all of his time to study Catholic religious teaching, and who has an army of people to interpret Catholic religious teaching is wrong.

I'm guessing that you have a family and a job which take away from your time to study Catholic theology on the level of the Pope, but perhaps you have the time and the fortitude to pour over centuries of Catholic theology.

So, why don't you lay out for us, in accordance with Catholic theology, where the Pope is wrong and how you came to that conclusion. Let us know about all the doctrine and theologians that you've studied and how they conflict with the Pope's assessment of those theologians and doctrine.

Because, otherwise, I'm just going to assume that your assessment of the Pope's statement is about the same as mine--a non-Catholic.

[JRDelirious]

To be fair to Martin, the Pope can be mistaken if speaking on matters of public social policy -- the doctrine of infallibility applies only to "Matters of Faith" and even then it has to be invoked explicitly, and has only been so twice in the last two centuries. BUT even so, the Pope speaks officially for the Church so it may be wrong, but it is the policy and the laity doesn't get a vote on it.


Y'know, "conservative" Catholics tend to kvetch a lot as to how American/European/"liberal" Catholics like to pick and choose and stretch the bounds, and refer to them derisively as "Cafeteria Catholics". Yet let a Pope bring up that Christianity (never mind even Catholicism) frowns upon adopting an "I got mine, sucks to be you" policy towards the less fortunate neighbor, and then it's the Pope who's talking out of his hat about things he's got no business with...

[Bricker]

I didn't realize that Catholics were allowed to pick and choose which parts of the Catholic dogma to accept. Can a Catholic just decide the Pope is wrong on abortion too?

By definition, Catholics may not pick and choose which parts of Catholic dogma to accept.

But your error here is in the assumption that the Pope's opinion on the permissibility of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in some circumstances, or the claim that UHC is an inalienable right, is Catholic dogma.

It's not.

[BrightNShiny]

By definition, Catholics may not pick and choose which parts of Catholic dogma to accept.

But your error here is in the assumption that the Pope's opinion on the permissibility of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in some circumstances, or the claim that UHC is an inalienable right, is Catholic dogma.

It's not.

Sure, okay. But I have to assume the Pope didn't just make this up out of thin air. I assume he's come to this conclusion by studying Catholic dogma. I realize that's an appeal to authority, but as a non-Catholic, it's not like I can weigh various levels of expertise in this area.

It would be interesting and informative for the people who are saying they disagree with the Pope to lay out for us how their viewpoint flows from Catholic dogma and where the Pope has made his error in interpreting Catholic dogma.

[Bricker]

Sure, okay. But I have to assume the Pope didn't just make this up out of thin air. I assume he's come to this conclusion by studying Catholic dogma. I realize that's an appeal to authority, but as a non-Catholic, it's not like I can weigh various levels of expertise in this area.

It would be interesting and informative for the people who are saying they disagree with the Pope to lay out for us how their viewpoint flows from Catholic dogma and where the Pope has made his error in interpreting Catholic dogma.

I agree that would be interesting. But remember that apart from definitive matters of faith and morals, an individual Catholic is not obligated to accept as true plenty of things that the Church as a whole credits. For example, the Church has validated the appearance of the Blessed Virgin to three shepherd children in Fátima in 1917.

But any individual Catholic is free to conclude that this interpretation is mistaken, and that nothing supernatural occurred.

My own short answer is that the Pope's exhortation must be read and understood in light of his other views. That is, one may not myopically focus on this guarantee to the exclusion of others. The Pope has also said:

Children have the right to be born and to grow in the midst of a family founded on matrimony, where the parents are the first educators of children in the faith and where they can grow to full human and spiritual maturity. For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself.

The Pope's comment about health care is not intended to apply to a society that does not ALSO apply his guidance about abortion.

[Arnold Winkelried]

My own short answer is that the Pope's exhortation must be read and understood in light of his other views. That is, one may not myopically focus on this guarantee to the exclusion of others. The Pope has also said:

The Pope's comment about health care is not intended to apply to a society that does not ALSO apply his guidance about abortion.I thought that you agreed with the Pope on abortion and disagreed with his stance on health care? Or am I mistaken? Wouldn't that be myopically focussing on one stance to the exclusion of others?

[Bricker]

I thought that you agreed with the Pope on abortion and disagreed with his stance on health care? Or am I mistaken? Wouldn't that be myopically focussing on one stance to the exclusion of others?

No, I support the Pope's agenda in total: if we reversed our stance on abortion, I'd favor UHC.

[Arnold Winkelried]

No, I support the Pope's agenda in total: if we reversed our stance on abortion, I'd favor UHC.So, in countries without UHC, you think abortion should be legal?
ETA: I'm not trying to pester you here, but attempting to understand your logic.

[Lobohan]

So, in countries without UHC, you think abortion should be legal?
ETA: I'm not trying to pester you here, but attempting to understand your logic.I'd like some clarification too, what Bricker is suggesting seems to be, "I don't want you to have anything you want unless I get everything I want."

[John Mace]

So, in countries without UHC, you think abortion should be legal?
ETA: I'm not trying to pester you here, but attempting to understand your logic.

If A then B. Not B, therefore not A.

You think that's a logically true statement? Really?

[Bricker]

So, in countries without UHC, you think abortion should be legal?
ETA: I'm not trying to pester you here, but attempting to understand your logic.

No. You have given the inverse (http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm) of my statement.

[Bricker]

I'd like some clarification too, what Bricker is suggesting seems to be, "I don't want you to have anything you want unless I get everything I want."

No.

It has nothing to do with the proportions of things I want. It has to do with consistency. It makes no sense to force productive citizens to pay for health care for unproductive citizens when the same society is willing to slaughter unborn children -- and, indeed, to spend tax dollars in some cases to facilitate that killing.

[John Mace]

No.

It has nothing to do with the proportions of things I want. It has to do with consistency. It makes no sense to force productive citizens to pay for health care for unproductive citizens when the same society is willing to slaughter unborn children -- and, indeed, to spend tax dollars in some cases to facilitate that killing.

I'm having trouble understanding the connection you see between the two issues. Why would it make sense to force production citizens to pay for health care for unproductive citizens just because abortion is illegal?

[Arnold Winkelried]

OK, I understand you better now. Since we live in a society willing to slaughter unborn children, does this mean that nothing else makes sense, and so no other social programs should be supported? Like social security, food stamps, medicare, college scholarships for the military, etc.? What are the things that it's OK to spend tax dollars on, seeing as how we also use tax dollars to facilitate the killing of unborn children?

[BrightNShiny]

But any individual Catholic is free to conclude that this interpretation is mistaken, and that nothing supernatural occurred.

Based on what? Either they've come to their own interpretation of Catholic dogma (which is what I'm trying to suss out here) or what? They've substituted an alternate set of religious beliefs in this area? Does this mean that Catholics are free to substitute alternative theological systems when they choose to do so?

The Pope's comment about health care is not intended to apply to a society that does not ALSO apply his guidance about abortion.

Where are you getting this? This doesn't follow from the Pope's statement you've quoted here. Is it derived from his other writings?

It makes no sense to force productive citizens to pay for health care for unproductive citizens when the same society is willing to slaughter unborn children -- and, indeed, to spend tax dollars in some cases to facilitate that killing.

Where in Catholic dogma does this statement you've made come from? What is it in Catholic dogma that leads one to this conclusion?

[The Tooth]

No.

It has nothing to do with the proportions of things I want. It has to do with consistency. It makes no sense to force productive citizens to pay for health care for unproductive citizens when the same society is willing to slaughter unborn children -- and, indeed, to spend tax dollars in some cases to facilitate that killing.

It's an interesting assumption that those currently without health insurance, or those with insurance but who would still benefit from UHC, are unproductive. Also, you are not a theocracy. Your government's hypothetical adoption of UHC might happen to be pope-friendly, but they are not following the pope's agenda; the pope's opinion on the matter is irrelevant to whether or not your government adopts UHC as policy. The logical disconnect in your argument comes when it assumes that any policy that is approved of by the Church is adopted because it has the approval of the church. It makes no sense to expect or demand dogmatic consistency from a body that does not subscribe to that dogma.

If you don't want to support UHC for reasons of your own, fine. But to point at the fact that abortion isn't illegal as an excuse makes no sense.

[Bricker]

Based on what? Either they've come to their own interpretation of Catholic dogma (which is what I'm trying to suss out here) or what?

You keep using the word 'dogma,' in a way that makes me suspect you don't mean the same thing I mean, or the same thing the dictionary means.

'Dogma' refers to athe aggregate body of doctrines concerning faith and morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by the Holy See.

so...

They've substituted an alternate set of religious beliefs in this area? Does this mean that Catholics are free to substitute alternative theological systems when they choose to do so?


No. Yes. Maybe.

It all depends on what you mean here. Catholic dogma holds that the saints have a real and active presence in the universe. But Catholic dogma does not compel any particular appearance of a saint in modern times to be considered as genuine. Do you see the difference?


Where are you getting this? This doesn't follow from the Pope's statement you've quoted here. Is it derived from his other writings?

It's actually derived from the writings of Pope John Paul II, particularly Evangelium Vitae.



Where in Catholic dogma does this statement you've made come from? What is it in Catholic dogma that leads one to this conclusion?

Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from decreasing, is expanding: with the new prospects opened up by scientific and technological progress there arise new forms of attacks on the dignity of the human being. At the same time a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a new and-if possible-even more sinister character, giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the State, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health-care systems.

All this is causing a profound change in the way in which life and relationships between people are considered. The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable. Even certain sectors of the medical profession, which by its calling is directed to the defence and care of human life, are increasingly willing to carry out these acts against the person. In this way the very nature of the medical profession is distorted and contradicted, and the dignity of those who practise it is degraded. In such a cultural and legislative situation, the serious demographic, social and family problems which weigh upon many of the world's peoples and which require responsible and effective attention from national and international bodies, are left open to false and deceptive solutions, opposed to the truth and the good of persons and nations.

The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life.

[BrightNShiny]

You keep using the word 'dogma,' in a way that makes me suspect you don't mean the same thing I mean, or the same thing the dictionary means.

'Dogma' refers to athe aggregate body of doctrines concerning faith and morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by the Holy See.

so...

Well, maybe I'm not using it the same way, since I don't know how you are using the word "authoritatively" here (is it tied in with the infallibility concept?) I'm using it to mean the general body of church law and teaching and religious philosophy. If you think I'm using it incorrectly, then would you prefer the word "canon"?

No. Yes. Maybe.

It all depends on what you mean here. Catholic dogma holds that the saints have a real and active presence in the universe. But Catholic dogma does not compel any particular appearance of a saint in modern times to be considered as genuine. Do you see the difference?

What I mean is that the Church has some framework for determining miracles (I'm going to refer to this as the "MDF") correct? And they didn't pull this MDF out of thin air--they derived it from previous Catholic "cannon," correct?

So, if you (general you) disagree that Fatima is a miracle, these are the possibilities I'm seeing:

1) You agree with the MDF, but you think the Church applied it incorrectly. In which case you should be able to lay out how the Church incorrectly applied the MDF.

2) You don't believe the MDF is a proper interpretation of Church "canon." In which case, you should be able to lay out what you think the proper MDF is based on Church "canon."

3) You are completely ignoring Church "canon" and have decided to substitute your own philosophical framework in the area of miracles.

Maybe I missed an option, do you see any other? The way this thread reads to me, it's as if I stated that SC Justice Scalia was incorrect in a ruling. Now, of course, I'm free to think that, but if I didn't lay out a legal argument as to why I think that, who would you think has more knowledge about the subject, me or Scalia?

The Pope is clearly well-studied in Catholicism. If someone is going to state that he's incorrect, shouldn't they be able to lay out a Catholic argument as to why, just the way I should be able to lay out a legal argument as to why I think Scalia is wrong?

It's actually derived from the writings of Pope John Paul II, particularly Evangelium Vitae.

I don't necessarily see that from the excerpt you've quoted, but I can see how it can be parsed that way. If there are other statements you can quote which would make it clearer, that would be useful.

[Captain Amazing]

The Pope's comment about health care is not intended to apply to a society that does not ALSO apply his guidance about abortion.

I don't think that's true, really. I mean, Catholic social teaching does need to be read as a unified whole, and obviously, as far as the Pope is concerned, in a perfect world, there would be both no abortion and there would be UHC, but both abortion and the failure to provide health care to everyone in a society that can afford it are offenses against the dignity of human life and are evils, and you can't justify the toleration of one evil merely because you tolerate another one. It's one thing to say, "Well, I think abortion is the more serious evil, and therefore I'm going to prioritize my efforts into getting that stopped over getting UHC passed", but that's different than saying "It's morally acceptable that we don't have UHC (that won't allow abortions) because we also have abortion."

It's a little bit like the joke about the guy asked to donate to charity, and he says to the guy collecting for charity, "Why are you asking me this now? My sister is horribly sick, and will die if she doesn't get an expensive operation, my brother is out of work and doesn't know where his next meal is coming from, and my mother's house is about to go in foreclosure." The collector says he's sorry, and the guy being asked goes on to say, "If I won't give money to any of them, why would I give money to you?"

[BigT]

Eh. The right to life is generally considered an inalienable right. Withholding healthcare from someone because they can't afford it is denying them that right. Thus universal health care is an inalienable right.

Of course, that also means that food programs are an inalienable right. But, seeing as the Bible is full of commandments to feed the poor, and even includes a communistic economic system in Acts, I don't see that as a problem either.

As for the theological debate: I've always understood the idea of papal infallibility to have nothing to do with the Pope's education itself, but the fact that the Holy Ghost takes over when certain types of statements are made. In other words, if you disagree with the Pope on anything else, it's perfectly fine for it to just be your own conviction.

[BrightNShiny]

In other words, if you disagree with the Pope on anything else, it's perfectly fine for it to just be your own conviction.

I have trouble believing this statement is accurate. If a Catholic were to say that they didn't believe in Fatima because an Aztec god told him it was fake, that wouldn't be proper, would it? The reasoning behind why you choose to disagree with the Pope also has to conform to Catholic "dogma" (in the sense Bricker has outlined), doesn't it? If so, then you can't just substitute your own conviction wily-nily, the conviction has to be rooted in Catholic "dogma" doesn't it?

Furthermore, where does all this non-dogma stuff come from? Does it come from the Church analyzing the dogma and applying it to other situations? If so, then shouldn't a Catholic be following a similar process?

[martu]

No.

It has nothing to do with the proportions of things I want. It has to do with consistency. It makes no sense to force productive citizens to pay for health care for unproductive citizens when the same society is willing to slaughter unborn children -- and, indeed, to spend tax dollars in some cases to facilitate that killing.

Yes it does if it is doing the greater good.

The Pope thinks that people have a right to health care and he also thinks abortion is wrong. Surely getting only one of those is better than not getting either of them?

[Bricker]

Yes it does if it is doing the greater good.

The Pope thinks that people have a right to health care and he also thinks abortion is wrong. Surely getting only one of those is better than not getting either of them?

Not necessarily true.

To take another example, the Pope has often said that condom use represents an error, and he's also said that sex should be confined to a martial, monogamous relationship. Do you see how the two of those go together? People have criticized the Pope for his comments on condoms, pointing out how effective condoms are in stopping the spread of HIV. But if people who eschewed condom use ALSO followed the Pope's guidance on sex only within marriage, then the spread of HIV would be stopped.

In my opinion, abortion and health care are similarly intertwined. A society that is willing to slaughter its most defenseless members cannot gain grace by then turning cynically around and purporting to provide health care. It is completely contradictory.

[martu]

Not necessarily true.

Oh I’m sure you can come up with some scenarios where this is not true but in this case it is true.

To take another example, the Pope has often said that condom use represents an error, and he's also said that sex should be confined to a martial, monogamous relationship. Do you see how the two of those go together? People have criticized the Pope for his comments on condoms, pointing out how effective condoms are in stopping the spread of HIV. But if people who eschewed condom use ALSO followed the Pope's guidance on sex only within marriage, then the spread of HIV would be stopped.

Sure but condom use and the spread of STIs are directly linked, abortion and health care (outside of medical care for the pregnant and foetus obviously) are not.

In my opinion, abortion and health care are similarly intertwined. A society that is willing to slaughter its most defenseless members cannot gain grace by then turning cynically around and purporting to provide health care. It is completely contradictory.

If doing A and doing B both provide some good without directly affecting each other doing just A or just B is doing some good. Grace or contradiction does not come into it.

[Bricker]

Well, maybe I'm not using it the same way, since I don't know how you are using the word "authoritatively" here (is it tied in with the infallibility concept?) I'm using it to mean the general body of church law and teaching and religious philosophy. If you think I'm using it incorrectly, then would you prefer the word "canon"?

Perhaps an example would help.

The idea that Jesus gave us seven sacraments is a matter of dogma. No Catholic may dispute that point: there are seven, period.

The claim that the nurse baptized baby Timmy just before he died is open to debate. Did she? Or is she simply say she did to soothe the parents' grief?

A faithful Catholic may believe or disbelieve the nurse's account.


What I mean is that the Church has some framework for determining miracles (I'm going to refer to this as the "MDF") correct? And they didn't pull this MDF out of thin air--they derived it from previous Catholic "cannon," correct?

So, if you (general you) disagree that Fatima is a miracle, these are the possibilities I'm seeing:

1) You agree with the MDF, but you think the Church applied it incorrectly. In which case you should be able to lay out how the Church incorrectly applied the MDF.

2) You don't believe the MDF is a proper interpretation of Church "canon." In which case, you should be able to lay out what you think the proper MDF is based on Church "canon."

3) You are completely ignoring Church "canon" and have decided to substitute your own philosophical framework in the area of miracles.

I think option 1 is the closest, but there's a subtle difference between "applied it incorrectly" and what I'm talking about.


Maybe I missed an option, do you see any other? The way this thread reads to me, it's as if I stated that SC Justice Scalia was incorrect in a ruling. Now, of course, I'm free to think that, but if I didn't lay out a legal argument as to why I think that, who would you think has more knowledge about the subject, me or Scalia?


This is a great example. Justice Scalia doesn't determine facts. He determines the law. He may decide, for instance, that robbing a bank by using a voodoo doll as a threat ("Give me the money or I'll stick the pin in this doll's neck -- and you can see the doll looks just like you, so you KNOW what will happen!") is using a weapon within the meaning of the law. But he doesn't determine specifically if the accused actually did that act. That determination happens before we get to him. When he's asked to look at the case, he says, "The man was convicted at trial, so for the purposes of my analysis, I'm going to assume the facts are as the trial court found."

This is what's happening here. Yes, the church has a framework for determining miracles, just as we, secular society, have a framework to determine factual guilt. Once a person is convicted, our framework assumes his factual guilt. That's the model we use. Once the Church examines a purported miracle, they decide if, based on the evidence, the witness testimony, the exhibits, if the miracle happened. But they don't say, "This is now the absolute truth!"

Instead they say, "This is our best understanding of what happened here." An individual Catholic may reach the an opposite conclusion; he may know the reputation of the witness as a liar. Heck, he may have been present at the event and KNOW the claimed miracle did not occur. The framework exists and is being applied correctly; it simply reaches an incorrect result. The Church makes no claim on these matters to be inerrant.


The Pope is clearly well-studied in Catholicism. If someone is going to state that he's incorrect, shouldn't they be able to lay out a Catholic argument as to why, just the way I should be able to lay out a legal argument as to why I think Scalia is wrong?


Sure. In this case, I don't say the Pope is incorrect -- I say, and I feel he would agree, that his teaching is intended to apply not in a vacuum, but in harmony with his other teachings.

However, another Catholic may well say that even standing alone, the Pope is wrong in his conclusion. Yes, I would expect someone who does that to be able to lay out a reasoned argument to support his claim. But the point is: the Church does not forbid a faithful catholic from taking that stand. Catholics MUST believe certain things, matters of dogma. This is not one of them.

[Bricker]

Oh I’m sure you can come up with some scenarios where this is not true but in this case it is true.

Yes, it is.


Sure but condom use and the spread of STIs are directly linked, abortion and health care (outside of medical care for the pregnant and foetus obviously) are not.


Of course they are.


If doing A and doing B both provide some good without directly affecting each other doing just A or just B is doing some good. Grace or contradiction does not come into it.

Yes, they do.

Why do we need to provide health care? Why does the Pope teach that it's a right? In the article quoted at the beginning of this thread, the Pope is reported to say:

Care for human life from conception to its natural end must be a guiding light in determining health care policy.

Why do you assume you can unravel the "from conception" part of this guidance?

[Shodan]

Correct me if I am wrong, but opposition to abortion has not been defined as dogma, has it? That is, is it possible for a faithful Roman Catholic to dissent from church teaching?

Regards,
Shodan

[martu]

Yes, it is.

Of course they are.

Yes, they do.

Why do we need to provide health care? Why does the Pope teach that it's a right? In the article quoted at the beginning of this thread, the Pope is reported to say:

Why do you assume you can unravel the "from conception" part of this guidance?

Why is abortion directly linked to universal health care in your opinion?

[John Mace]

Bricker: You made a very curious statement about how you would support UHC if abortion were illegal, and some of us have asked you to explain that connection. Can you address that? Why would you suddenly want to make productive people support unproductive people just because abortion is illegal?

[Bricker]

Correct me if I am wrong, but opposition to abortion has not been defined as dogma, has it? That is, is it possible for a faithful Roman Catholic to dissent from church teaching?

Regards,
Shodan

Yes, it is. Not as an overall proposition, but in many many particulars.

[Bricker]

Why is abortion directly linked to universal health care in your opinion?

Bricker: You made a very curious statement about how you would support UHC if abortion were illegal, and some of us have asked you to explain that connection. Can you address that? Why would you suddenly want to make productive people support unproductive people just because abortion is illegal?

Sure.

Suppose you offered a plan to provide UHC to everyone with an even social security number. Odd numbered ones are on their own.

You might say, "Look, it's better to get at least the even numbers covered. Half is more than none, after all!"

Would you wonder that I'd resist that? It's true that half is more than none as a mathematical statement, but making that kind of distinction is a terrible thing for a society to do. It's bad because it gives the illusion of having made strides towards solving the problem. And it's even worse because it draws a ridiculous and impermissible distinction between living persons.

Everything I've said applies to abortion. You want to create a system of providing health care to some people and leave in place a system of arbitrarily killing other people. This doesn't make sense.

[John Mace]

Maybe I'm being dense on this, but that makes it even more confusing. Please don't offer an analogy... just explain the position on its own merits. What does abortion and UHC have to do with each other.

Are you just taking two arbitrary issues and saying you'd be willing to trade one for the other? OK, you can have your UHC, but you have to give me my anti-abortion law as a trade?

[Mr. Moto]

Well, It seems to me that some people on this website are more than happy to seize on the Pope's statements concerning health care since this agrees with their political position. They do this to add credibility to their own arguments regarding it and also attempt to put opponents of universal health care into a less advantageous position by referencing this opinion.

Now, this is all well and good, but most of the people doing so are not Catholic themselves, do not share the Catholic Church's rather long history of providing for the sick, and not only do not agree with other Catholic teachings but are often contemptuous of these on this website. All well and fine - disagreements can be abided. And we are certainly free to agree with the Church on some matters and disagree with them on others - this applies to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

There are a couple of things that ought to be kept in mind here, though - the Church asks of its believers that it believe certain things. Most things are left to individual conscience and intellectual exploration, but some things the Church regards as settled issues requiring no additional debate. The sanctity of life from conception is one of these things.

The Church also traditionally has placed on its members the duty to care for the sick. Now, this duty has caveats in Catholic teaching - Catholic doctors and nurses may not participate in the performance or procurement of an abortion (except in certain grave circumstances). So this is linked.

The Church has also performed this duty where charity demanded - this was true for everyone from the Knights Hospitallers to the Sisters of Mercy. They do so today where governments cannot or will not provide universal coverage. Even in countries that have modern facilities and broad access, like most of the West, the hospitals and clinics built by the Church and other religious institutions provided a massive institutional investment that could be built upon.

So when the Pope calls health care a right, however much we may debate this, it is as the head of a social service agency that has done more to provide health care than any other single one on earth. If he was doing nothing to bring that health care to people, that would be a different story.

I disagree with his exact wording, but as I said, I would describe health care more as a duty we owe others than a right we have. That doesn't make our obligations any easier to duck - indeed, it makes them harder.

[Lobohan]

Maybe I'm being dense on this, but that makes it even more confusing. Please don't offer an analogy... just explain the position on its own merits. What does abortion and UHC have to do with each other.

Are you just taking two arbitrary issues and saying you'd be willing to trade one for the other? OK, you can have your UHC, but you have to give me my anti-abortion law as a trade?He wants to withhold UHC, which is a good idea, as punishment for legalizing abortion.

It's utterly indefensible, it's petulant, not intelligent.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Bricker, if I understand your position correctly:
If a country legalizes abortion, you would oppose them offering UHC (however you define UHC), so for example you would be opposed to them offering free medical care to indigent people.
If a country makes abortion illegal, you would then say it is wrong for them to not offer UHC, and you would say that in this country the government should be required to offer UHC (e.g. free medical care to indigent people.)

[Paranoid Randroid]

Maybe I'm being dense on this, but that makes it even more confusing.

I, too, am having trouble making sense of Bricker's position -- although I can't agree with Lobohan that he's withholding support for UHC as a bargaining chip for prohibiting abortion. It seems something more like: it is (in someway) gross to support a policy that accounted for everyone's health but that of the unborn, who are being killed as long as abortion is legal.

But I don't think many would find the connection terribly convincing. (I certainly don't.) Should we keep from enacting UHC until we outlaw capital punishment, which at least occasionally takes innocent lives? Until we eradicate poverty, which harms the physical and mental wellbeing of countless individuals? Things'll never be perfect.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I think he is saying that it is inconsistent to care for the life and health of those who are out of the womb without having any concern for those taht are still within the womb.

I can't say I entirely agree but I thiknk that is what he is saying.

[Bricker]

Maybe I'm being dense on this, but that makes it even more confusing. Please don't offer an analogy... just explain the position on its own merits. What does abortion and UHC have to do with each other.

Are you just taking two arbitrary issues and saying you'd be willing to trade one for the other? OK, you can have your UHC, but you have to give me my anti-abortion law as a trade?

No, no -- nothing of the kind. That might make sense if I were a legislator trading votes; here, for discussion purposes, that makes no sense.

I'm simply saying that a country has no business spending its citizens money on health care for some of the population while at the same time allowing others of the population to be killed at whim. It's simply inconsistent.

[Bricker]

He wants to withhold UHC, which is a good idea, as punishment for legalizing abortion.

It's utterly indefensible, it's petulant, not intelligent.

No. Don't ascribe a position to me I have not taken. This has nothing to do with punishment.

[Bricker]

Bricker, if I understand your position correctly:
If a country legalizes abortion, you would oppose them offering UHC (however you define UHC), so for example you would be opposed to them offering free medical care to indigent people.
If a country makes abortion illegal, you would then say it is wrong for them to not offer UHC, and you would say that in this country the government should be required to offer UHC (e.g. free medical care to indigent people.)

Hesitantly yes. There are other things a country could do that would invalidate the offering of UHC -- genocide against segments of their population, for example, or perhaps involuntary human medical testing, something like that. In fact, perhaps that makes my position clearer? If the country offered UHC, but also had a policy of forced sterilization for a despised minority population, you can see how foolish that would be, yes?

So it's not ONLY abortion that flies in the face of UHC, but abortion is (I think) the only thing on which there's widespread disagreement. Most societies agree that forced sterilization is evil.

[Bricker]

I, too, am having trouble making sense of Bricker's position -- although I can't agree with Lobohan that he's withholding support for UHC as a bargaining chip for prohibiting abortion. It seems something more like: it is (in someway) gross to support a policy that accounted for everyone's health but that of the unborn, who are being killed as long as abortion is legal.

But I don't think many would find the connection terribly convincing. (I certainly don't.) Should we keep from enacting UHC until we outlaw capital punishment, which at least occasionally takes innocent lives? Until we eradicate poverty, which harms the physical and mental wellbeing of countless individuals? Things'll never be perfect.

Capital punishment is a tough one. It's a clear wrong, a clear evil, but it happens so comparatively rarely that I can't justify tying it to UHC. Obviously it doesn't make sense to provide UHC while at the same time deliberately killing some of our citizens, so capital punishment should be ended... but the numbers don't match up.

For abortion, they do.

Poverty? No, especially since one clear way that poverty harms the physical well-being of individuals is lack of access to health care, which (obviously) UHC would solve. So the existence of poverty is NOT a reason to stop UHC.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Hesitantly yes. There are other things a country could do that would invalidate the offering of UHC -- genocide against segments of their population, for example, or perhaps involuntary human medical testing, something like that. In fact, perhaps that makes my position clearer? If the country offered UHC, but also had a policy of forced sterilization for a despised minority population, you can see how foolish that would be, yes?

So it's not ONLY abortion that flies in the face of UHC, but abortion is (I think) the only thing on which there's widespread disagreement. Most societies agree that forced sterilization is evil.
I'll say that your position is more logical than it appeared to me at first, and I understand it better now. But I disagree. Offering UHC would be a good thing, even if a country has other practices that are human rights violations (e.g. forced sterilization for a despised minority population.) In that case, one should do whatever is possible to stop the "wrong" practice, but still encourage the "good" practices.

[John Mace]

No, no -- nothing of the kind. That might make sense if I were a legislator trading votes; here, for discussion purposes, that makes no sense.

I'm simply saying that a country has no business spending its citizens money on health care for some of the population while at the same time allowing others of the population to be killed at whim. It's simply inconsistent.

So, let me ask this. Suppose the US outlawed abortion. No more legal abortions in the US. Would you then, as a matter of policy, champion the cause of UHC and argue for its inclusion in our laws, or would you merely not oppose it And why?

[John Mace]

Hesitantly yes. There are other things a country could do that would invalidate the offering of UHC -- genocide against segments of their population, for example, or perhaps involuntary human medical testing, something like that. In fact, perhaps that makes my position clearer? If the country offered UHC, but also had a policy of forced sterilization for a despised minority population, you can see how foolish that would be, yes?

So it's not ONLY abortion that flies in the face of UHC, but abortion is (I think) the only thing on which there's widespread disagreement. Most societies agree that forced sterilization is evil.
I'm just not seeing the linkage. Why would it be wrong to offer UHC if a country had forced sterilization of some group? The forced sterilization is a policy decision completely apart from UHC.

We already have a situation in the US where federal $$ cannot be used to finance abortions. So there is no mixing of the two. Abortions are legal, if privately funded. So, if UHC is a good, it should be a good regardless of the legality of abortion. Unless, of course, you believe in collective punishment. The US is a wicked, evil country for allowing abortions, hence its people (including those who passionately campaign to make abortions illegal) do not deserve health care as an entitlement.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.

Well doesn't the rights you correctly apply to medical practitioners also depend on the cooperation of law enforcement ?

Presumably we don't have the right to force the police to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to security not inalienable, but conditional ?

[Lobohan]

No. Don't ascribe a position to me I have not taken. This has nothing to do with punishment.Your position is logically incoherent, I was offering a sane, if stupid way to justify it.

Are you suggesting that your motivations aren't sane? Because you being bitter and petty is about the only possible way to frame this as something wretched and misguided, but not completely irrational.

[Lobohan]

I'm simply saying that a country has no business spending its citizens money on health care for some of the population while at the same time allowing others of the population to be killed at whim. It's simply inconsistent.Most people don't agree that a first trimester fetus is a person. All people agree that a janitor with stage III liver cancer is a person. The only inconsistency here is that you care more about unthinking fetuses than Janitors.

[Mr. Moto]

Well doesn't the rights you correctly apply to medical practitioners also depend on the cooperation of law enforcement ?

Presumably we don't have the right to force the police to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to security not inalienable, but conditional ?

See John Mace's concise reply in post #36.

[Magiver]

If the Pope thinks it's a right he must understand that UHC is a tax funded program. He should liquidate the wealth of the church as a pro-offered luxury tax and then pay property taxes on the remaining assets.

In addition to taxes assessed on income and property he should promote taxes on direct labor for those who do not generate enough income to tax.

[The Flying Dutchman]

See John Mace's concise reply in post #36.

I'm more interested in your take on it.

Do we have an inalienable right to security?

[Chronos]

Everything I've said applies to abortion. You want to create a system of providing health care to some people and leave in place a system of arbitrarily killing other people. This doesn't make sense. Except it isn't a system of providing health care to only some people. Every version of the health care bill that's been proposed has included pre-natal care. The fact that abortion is allowed is an injustice, but it's a completely separate injustice, since all pregnant women have access to medical care for their fetuses if they seek it. Now, obviously, some pregnant women (presumably including those who are aborting) won't seek access to that medical care, but they still have that option: Surely you wouldn't argue that medical care should be compulsory?

[Bricker]

So, let me ask this. Suppose the US outlawed abortion. No more legal abortions in the US. Would you then, as a matter of policy, champion the cause of UHC and argue for its inclusion in our laws, or would you merely not oppose it And why?

I guess the answer would depend on why we outlawed it, but under most versions of that event, yes, I'd say we had a moral responsibility to offer UHC, and I'd affirmatively support it.

[John Mace]

I guess the answer would depend on why we outlawed it, but under most versions of that event, yes, I'd say we had a moral responsibility to offer UHC, and I'd affirmatively support it.
Why don't we have a moral responsibility now? There is no connection between abortion and UHC. Why do we have a moral responsibility to prevent slavery, since we allow abortion?

[sqweels]

Suppose you offered a plan to provide UHC to everyone with an even social security number. Odd numbered ones are on their own.

You might say, "Look, it's better to get at least the even numbers covered. Half is more than none, after all!"

Would you wonder that I'd resist that? It's true that half is more than none as a mathematical statement, but making that kind of distinction is a terrible thing for a society to do. It's bad because it gives the illusion of having made strides towards solving the problem. And it's even worse because it draws a ridiculous and impermissible distinction between living persons.
But fetuses are not persons and the distinction is by no means ridiculous.

I don't regard HC as an inalienable right, but I would support society providing it "in the main". If there are limits to our abilty to provide HC universally, they should parallel the limits of personhood.

On the front end, a fetus has not yet arrived at personhood, so no personhood was lost in the event of abortion. On the tail end, very elderly or teminally ill patients have reached the limits of personhood, so little additional personhood would be sacrificed by withholding treatment. In neither case is death as great as tragedy as when the patient is in the prime of life.

Witholding treatment from those unable to pay is much more arbitrary.
Everything I've said applies to abortion. You want to create a system of providing health care to some people and leave in place a system of arbitrarily killing other people. This doesn't make sense.
Abortion is not a "system" or a government program in the same sense that UHC would be, so that's apples and oranges. Abortion is society recusing itself from getting involved and leaving the decision to the individual.

If a pregnant woman comes in for pre-natal care, the "system" will help her in investing in what will eventually become a person. The "system" is not going to kill the fetus or withhold treatment with the expectation that it will die.

If a pregnant woman decides that she doesn't want to create a person, then the "system" does nothing and she'll go to a place where she can pay for an abortion on her own.

[Marley23]

Your position is logically incoherent, I was offering a sane, if stupid way to justify it.

Are you suggesting that your motivations aren't sane? Because you being bitter and petty is about the only possible way to frame this as something wretched and misguided, but not completely irrational.
Please dial back your rhetoric. Even phrased as a hypothetical, this is a personal attack on Bricker. The post that led to this wasn't really phrased as an "offer," either.

[Lobohan]

Please dial back your rhetoric. Even phrased as a hypothetical, this is a personal attack on Bricker. The post that led to this wasn't really phrased as an "offer," either.[click]I have set my rhetoric-pump back to neutral. My bad.

[Mr. Moto]

I'm more interested in your take on it.

Do we have an inalienable right to security?

Again, we have a duty to provide for the security of others. But unlike the rights to life, free thought, and property, the right of security is in large part ceded to the state or to society at large, and is not vested in the individual. Thus, it cannot be considered an inalienable right, it exists as a legal right.

[Captain Amazing]

I guess the answer would depend on why we outlawed it, but under most versions of that event, yes, I'd say we had a moral responsibility to offer UHC, and I'd affirmatively support it.

Let me join in in saying that while I understand the linkage, I still don't fully understand your position. Don't we have a moral responsibility to offer UHC now (again, speaking from a Catholic perspective)? We obviously have a moral responsibility to outlaw abortion, but that moral responsibility doesn't abrogate our moral responsibility to provide UHC. Let's consider two countries, one that has abortion and UHC (although the UHC doesn't fund abortions), and one that has abortion and no UHC. Or for that matter, one country that has genocide and UHC and another that has genocide and no UHC. Isn't the state with UHC the more moral state because it has UHC? I mean, it's still an incredibly immoral state, because of the abortion or genocide, but it's slightly more moral than the abortion or genocide state without it.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Again, we have a duty to provide for the security of others. But unlike the rights to life, free thought, and property, the right of security is in large part ceded to the state or to society at large, and is not vested in the individual. Thus, it cannot be considered an inalienable right, it exists as a legal right.

I understand life and free thought as inalienable
But the right to property is inalienable ?

How do you establish that ?

[Bricker]

Let me join in in saying that while I understand the linkage, I still don't fully understand your position. Don't we have a moral responsibility to offer UHC now (again, speaking from a Catholic perspective)? We obviously have a moral responsibility to outlaw abortion, but that moral responsibility doesn't abrogate our moral responsibility to provide UHC. Let's consider two countries, one that has abortion and UHC (although the UHC doesn't fund abortions), and one that has abortion and no UHC. Or for that matter, one country that has genocide and UHC and another that has genocide and no UHC. Isn't the state with UHC the more moral state because it has UHC? I mean, it's still an incredibly immoral state, because of the abortion or genocide, but it's slightly more moral than the abortion or genocide state without it.

No, I'd argue just the opposite, which is what I was trying to illustrate with my odd/even social security number hypo.

So a country that gave UHC to half its citizens, based on random number assignment, is more moral than one that doesn't give it at all? I say it's worse, because it elevates one segment of society over another for absolutely impermissible reasons.

Would you call a country that gave UHC to only one race slightly more moral than one that gave it to none? I wouldn't.

[John Mace]

No, I'd argue just the opposite, which is what I was trying to illustrate with my odd/even social security number hypo.

So a country that gave UHC to half its citizens, based on random number assignment, is more moral than one that doesn't give it at all? I say it's worse, because it elevates one segment of society over another for absolutely impermissible reasons.

Would you call a country that gave UHC to only one race slightly more moral than one that gave it to none? I wouldn't.

You still haven't explained what the link is between abortion and UHC. By your logic, why should I require a government to do anything if it sanctions abortion? Slavery? Who cares? Torture? Why bother outlawing it, as long as we have legal abortion? Trial by jury? Fughettaboutit! Until you outlaw abortion, no jury trial for you!

[Captain Amazing]

But the remedy for a society that does that...gives health care (you technically can't call it universal health care if people are excluded) to only one race, or by random number assignment, isn't for the state to end health care. It's for the state to extend that health care to everyone.

The state that only gives health care to a segment of its population based on race is a fundamentally unjust state, but at least it recognizes its responsibility to provide health care.

Likewise, in the US's case, the solution isn't to deny health care. It's to stop abortions.

[Captain Amazing]

And, like John Mace said. Is a state that allows abortion so fundamentally disordered that any atrocity becomes morally acceptable? I don't think that's the Vatican's position, which is why it calls on states that allow abortion to respect rights beyond just the right to life of its unborn citizens. The Vatican doesn't just say, "United States, you allow abortion, and therefore that's the only national behavior we'll condemn you for."

[John Mace]

Further, I'm not buying this idea that the Pope's missives are only to be taken in toto. Are we really to believe that the Pope comes out and says: UHC is an inalienable right, but if the country does not outlaw abortion, then it's perfectly fine for that country to not offer UHC.

[martu]

Sure.

Suppose you offered a plan to provide UHC to everyone with an even social security number. Odd numbered ones are on their own.

You might say, "Look, it's better to get at least the even numbers covered. Half is more than none, after all!"

Would you wonder that I'd resist that? It's true that half is more than none as a mathematical statement, but making that kind of distinction is a terrible thing for a society to do. It's bad because it gives the illusion of having made strides towards solving the problem. And it's even worse because it draws a ridiculous and impermissible distinction between living persons.

Everything I've said applies to abortion. You want to create a system of providing health care to some people and leave in place a system of arbitrarily killing other people. This doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry but this doesn't answer my question. What is the direct link between abortion and UHC? Condoms, STIs and abstinence have a direct link that abortions and UHC do not.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Bricker, your spin is making my dizzy.


Let's say a small town Sheriff represented aborted fetuses, and the deputy represented someone all those suffering and dieing in American society without health-care.


Are you honestly claiming if you shoot the sheriff, you're even more immoral if you don't shoot the deputy?

In other words, you're actually claiming more death (those without health care) is preferable to less?


Also:
My hobby: getting Bob Marley stuck in your head

[Bricker]

Are you honestly claiming if you shoot the sheriff, you're even more immoral if you don't shoot the deputy?


But I swear it was in self-defense.

[/Clapton]

[Bricker]

I'm sorry but this doesn't answer my question. What is the direct link between abortion and UHC? Condoms, STIs and abstinence have a direct link that abortions and UHC do not.

Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being -- kind of the exact opposite of UHC.

[ElvisL1ves]

Gratuitous assertion.

[martu]

Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being -- kind of the exact opposite of UHC.

No the exact opposite of UHC is not providing Health Care for all through taxation.

Abortion is the exact opposite of, well, having a baby.

[Bricker]

No the exact opposite of UHC is not providing Health Care for all through taxation.

Abortion is the exact opposite of, well, having a baby.

*sigh*

Yes. Thus my inclusion of "kind of."

This was intended to show that the policies support goals that are fairly described as opposite, in my opinion: caring the health of people, and killing people.

Of course, you may not agree that this is fair description of abortion. But this entire argument is my opinion; I recognize it's not a proposition objectively proveable.

[Shodan]

Is this related to the "seamless garment (http://ncronline.org/node/2926)" approach to social policy I heard about once?

nm if it is a hijack.

Regards,
Shodan

[martu]

*sigh*

Yes. Thus my inclusion of "kind of."

This was intended to show that the policies support goals that are fairly described as opposite, in my opinion: caring the health of people, and killing people.

Of course, you may not agree that this is fair description of abortion. But this entire argument is my opinion; I recognize it's not a proposition objectively proveable.

That's the end of this discussion then.

[monavis]

Not necessarily true.

To take another example, the Pope has often said that condom use represents an error, and he's also said that sex should be confined to a martial, monogamous relationship. Do you see how the two of those go together? People have criticized the Pope for his comments on condoms, pointing out how effective condoms are in stopping the spread of HIV. But if people who eschewed condom use ALSO followed the Pope's guidance on sex only within marriage, then the spread of HIV would be stopped.

In my opinion, abortion and health care are similarly intertwined. A society that is willing to slaughter its most defenseless members cannot gain grace by then turning cynically around and purporting to provide health care. It is completely contradictory.

Are you referring to a fertile egg, or are you claiming that an unborn child is a member of society? Do the parents get a Tax break for an unborn child even if that unborn has not yet taken on the appearance of a child? If a woman miscarries does she get a tax break if the miscarriage occurs just before the end of the year? Should a man get a break for all his sperm, since they are potential humans(should they enter a woman's body) and contain human life?

Should society be willing to make sure non of those born children do not starve to death (like many do in 3d world countries)? Isn't that just as wrong as stopping a child from forming in the early stages? Is taking a Morning after pill wrong, even if there was not a conception(and who can tell the day after intercourse)? Every act of intercourse does not produce a child. Isn't a good preventative better than having a child be born when it is very possible it may starve to death because the parents cannot provide the necessary food, etc.?

Calling something slaughter is an inaccurate term, just a way to try to control people through guilt!! Can you decide a woman cannot act in self defense as some do? Would you be willing to adopt all the possible children that would be (in your words) slaughtered? Let you family go with out to do so? If not then in my opinion you can't, and shouldn't decide what a woman can or can't do with her body or the health and welfare of her already born.

[Bricker]

Are you referring to a fertile egg, or are you claiming that an unborn child is a member of society?

I'm claiming that even though an unborn child is not considered a member ofsociety, my opinion is that he or she should be.

Do the parents get a Tax break for an unborn child even if that unborn has not yet taken on the appearance of a child?

No, they don't.

If a woman miscarries does she get a tax break if the miscarriage occurs just before the end of the year?

No, she doesn't.

Should a man get a break for all his sperm, since they are potential humans(should they enter a woman's body) and contain human life?


*sigh*

Yes. A man should get several million deductions.

I think this converstion is over.

[John Mace]

I'm still not seeing the linkage between abortion and UHC. I suppose you could say that UHC doesn't cover fetuses if abortion is allowed, but so what? We finance UHC with tax dollars (or whatever) and none of those dollars is allowed to finance abortions. There are two different switches you can flip. One switch gives you legal abortions or not and the other switch gives you UHC or not.

[monavis]

I'm claiming that even though an unborn child is not considered a member ofsociety, my opinion is that he or she should be.



No, they don't.



No, she doesn't.



*sigh*

Yes. A man should get several million deductions.

I think this converstion is over.

According to your response ,you just want your thoughts to control others, You admit your self that society doesn't really consider the fertile egg or fetus a part of society until birth. You are of course welcome to you beliefs and should not be forced to go against them, but neither should your ideas be forced on others in this circumstance, since your body isn't involved, nor are you supporting the un born you consider part of society,if you did ,you would be contributing to the woman's prenatal care and the care until it has reasched adulthood. It sounds like your thinking comes from a religious belief not science.

[Bricker]

, nor are you supporting the un born you consider part of society,if you did ,you would be contributing to the woman's prenatal care and the care until it has reasched adulthood.

Do you mean that I, personally, am not contributing to prenatal care? Or do you mean my proposed scheme would not contribute to prenatal care?

Try to form a coherent argument.

[Lobohan]

Do you mean that I, personally, am not contributing to prenatal care? Or do you mean my proposed scheme would not contribute to prenatal care?

Try to form a coherent argument.**cough** potkettle **cough**

[Le Jacquelope]

I don't know on this issue specifically, but I do know my dad's reaction when the Pope condemned the US' actions in Iraq: "Oh, the Pope is a decent man and all, and he means well, but he just doesn't understand the intricacies of foreign relations". And yes, my dad does call himself Catholic.

But hey, what could a head of state chosen for his wisdom, who routinely hobnobs directly with other world leaders, and who has teams of advisors on the subject possibly know about international relations that a retired self-employed electrician wouldn't?
We could judge the U.S.'s actions in Iraq by its fruits:

1) Failure to find the WMD's that George W Bush said was our reason to invade.
2) Billions of dollars of additional national debt.
3) Thousands of dead US soldiers.
4) After 23 YEARS of harsh rule under Saddam Hussein, 900,000 Iraqis died. In the years following America's 7-year occupation of Iraq, 655,000 (http://articles.cnn.com/2006-10-11/world/iraq.deaths_1_gilbert-burnham-death-rate-ali-dabbagh?_s=PM:WORLD) Iraqis have died, mostly from direct acts of violence. Proportional to the United States population that would amount to more deaths from war than almost all wars fought by America, combined.

You're right... the Pope seems to get it.

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm claiming that even though an unborn child is not considered a member ofsociety, my opinion is that he or she should be.
The whole pro-choice movement is just another extension (or, maybe, pre-cursor?) to the "might makes right" subset of social Darwinism that passes for capitalist thinking today. Prey on those weaker than you, dehumanize them, trample on those who get in your way, it's the baby's fault for being disadvantaged (in this case unwanted), if they can't fight back they don't deserve to live (same thinking goes on with anti-environmentalist whackos), etc. All of it bears alarming similarities to the most bully-ish aspects of free market thinking.*

I don't know if you live in America but did you know that while the U.S. Government cannot tell a woman what to do with her body, the Government does tell men what to do with theirs? (Selective Service and, if war breaks out, the draft.) And even funnier than this is that women serve on draft boards to potentially decide whose bodies get hijacked for war. Imagine the uproar if they were denied the legal right to an abortion by a panel of men? *snicker* At least with pregnancy, 93% of the time the woman actually did something to get pregnant. If the draft is reactivated you get penalized just for being born male...

* This mentality is held by both men and women alike. It is true that if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. A pox upon all of them...

[tomndebb]

**cough** potkettle **cough**Knock off the name calling.

[ /Modding ]

[Lobohan]

Knock off the name calling.

[ /Modding ]I certainly didn't intend it as name calling. I intended it as pointing out what I took as the irony of Bricker requiring a coherent argument when his position is without one.

I wasn't trying to be any snippier than what I said in the above sentence, I was just trying to be funny about it. What name would I even be calling him, Black? :confused:

[Blalron]

Everything I've said applies to abortion. You want to create a system of providing health care to some people and leave in place a system of arbitrarily killing other people. This doesn't make sense.

But doesn't UHC put us incrementally closer to your ideal vision of a society?

If slavery were legal, and abortion were legal, would you vote against a measure to outlaw slavery just because it doesn't also outlaw abortion?

If we have three different societies: X, Y, and Z

X has legal abortion and no UHC
Y has legal abortion and UHC
Z has outlawed abortion and has UHC

Doesn't it make logical sense, assuming that both abortion and UHC are important issues, that Y is a better society than X, even if it's not as perfect as Z?

Couldn't you just as easily decide not to support an abortion ban that's not packaged with universal health care, because it arbitrarily refuses to protect post-born humans?

[monavis]

Do you mean that I, personally, am not contributing to prenatal care? Or do you mean my proposed scheme would not contribute to prenatal care?

Try to form a coherent argument.


I mean you ,and all who think think like you, and wonder just how much of a sacrifice you personally are supporting, from conception to birth.and how many!

Talk doesn't put food on the table, health care, education and etc. to bring a fertile egg to full adulthood ,and it is my opinion that if a person is really interested in the welfare of the woman and born (or yet unborn) child they would put their money where their mouth is!

[Blalron]

Imagine this scenario:

The year is 2017. Roe vs Wade has been overturned. There's a vote coming up in the House for an "Omnibus Ban Abortion And Implement Single Payer Health Care" bill and the bill has already passed in the Senate. But it fails by one vote.

Representative Soandso casts the deciding "No" vote. He is in favor of banning abortion and health care for all, but it turns out that he's also a devout vegetarian, and thinks that it's completely arbitrary that we protect unborn human life but fail to protect animal life from being slaughtered for food.

Doesn't that seem just a little bit... silly? Counterproductive? Making the perfect be the enemy of the good? Bricker, that's what your position looks like to me.

[Bricker]

I mean you ,and all who think think like you, and wonder just how much of a sacrifice you personally are supporting, from conception to birth.and how many!

Talk doesn't put food on the table, health care, education and etc. to bring a fertile egg to full adulthood ,and it is my opinion that if a person is really interested in the welfare of the woman and born (or yet unborn) child they would put their money where their mouth is!

I don't believe you, because I have a pretty good answer for you and it won't change your mind in the slightest.

I serve on the board of directors of a local pro-life charity. Our focus is providing necessities to expectant mothers: car seats, cribs, layettes, diapers -- all at no charge, all intended to lessen the financial burden of choosing to keep a child and making it possible to do so. In addition, we teach several vocation classes, intended to give women a leg up in entering a new career or increasing their earning potential. And we assist with medical expenses and referrals to other sources of aid in the area. I devote considerable hours to this endeavor every month, both in teaching and working on processing donations, as well as fundraising efforts for the charity. Finally, we manage adoption referrals for those not wanting to raise a child but not abortion-minded.

Our view is somewhat similar to what you've said: it doesn't do much good to simply piously state that we should keep and not abort children; we try to make it more of a possible, practical choice to keep a child.

Well?

[Bricker]

Doesn't that seem just a little bit... silly? Counterproductive? Making the perfect be the enemy of the good? Bricker, that's what your position looks like to me.

I believe there is a principled distinction to be made between human and animal life.

[Lobohan]

I believe there is a principled distinction to be made between human and animal life.Way to fight the analogy there. If you can come out of nitpick mode, can you address the substance of what he said? Why is that guy illogical and you not?

[Chronos]

Bricker, as I understand it, your argument is that "universal" health care which covers some arbitrary subset of society but which excludes another subset is fundamentally unjust. Is this correct? Which subset, then, do you claim wouldn't be covered under the proposed universal health care plans? It's not fetuses, since the proposals do include funding for prenatal care.

[Bricker]

Way to fight the analogy there. If you can come out of nitpick mode, can you address the substance of what he said? Why is that guy illogical and you not?

Because there is no principled distinction to be made -- in my opinion, of course -- between born and unborn humans with respect to health care.

[Revenant Threshold]

In my opinion, abortion and health care are similarly intertwined. A society that is willing to slaughter its most defenseless members cannot gain grace by then turning cynically around and purporting to provide health care. It is completely contradictory. Does the belief make the difference, or the fact? I mean, it doesn't seem particularly reasonable to declare cynicism based on your beliefs; it would be like me claiming your pro-life beliefs are hypocritical because I don't think fetuses are worthy of protection in the same way adult humans are. It's judging your actions by my belief system.

[Lobohan]

Because there is no principled distinction to be made -- in my opinion, of course -- between born and unborn humans with respect to health care.Unborn humans would have access to universal health care, via their mothers. This would be far better for children because of widespread prenatal care.

The fact that some of those children would later be murdered (from your point of view), has nothing whatsoever to do with the availability of medical care.

[monavis]

I don't believe you, because I have a pretty good answer for you and it won't change your mind in the slightest.

I serve on the board of directors of a local pro-life charity. Our focus is providing necessities to expectant mothers: car seats, cribs, layettes, diapers -- all at no charge, all intended to lessen the financial burden of choosing to keep a child and making it possible to do so. In addition, we teach several vocation classes, intended to give women a leg up in entering a new career or increasing their earning potential. And we assist with medical expenses and referrals to other sources of aid in the area. I devote considerable hours to this endeavor every month, both in teaching and working on processing donations, as well as fundraising efforts for the charity. Finally, we manage adoption referrals for those not wanting to raise a child but not abortion-minded.

Our view is somewhat similar to what you've said: it doesn't do much good to simply piously state that we should keep and not abort children; we try to make it more of a possible, practical choice to keep a child.

Well?

Serving on a board and helping a little bit isn't enough, you are not sacrificing like you expect a woman to do. If every pro-birther would really sacrifice as much as they should, there would be no starving children, here or in other countries.

Spending the time and money trying to tell a woman what she should do with her body like you insist,isn't helping her. Better the time and money spent protesting and trying to ply her with guilt would be better spent, if the pro-birth people would really be Pro-Life, and see that the woman was protected, in stead of trying to force her to follow what your mindset does. Did you ever suffer the agony some women have by giving up their child? I know women who have. And I also know women who have carried a fertile egg to term and the child suffered mental anguish all it's life.

If a woman had the morning after pill available then there would be no (or little) need for an abortion, and preventing the need in the first place is better for the woman. She is more than just an incubator. She is already born and should have rights as well. It should remain her choice not some one else's.

[monavis]

Because there is no principled distinction to be made -- in my opinion, of course -- between born and unborn humans with respect to health care.

Bilologially there is a difference, I doubt you would consider a horse embryo a horse, and wouldn't like it if I sold you one ,if you expected a horse! Your religious believes or other beliefs should not be forced on those who do not believe as you do. It is like in some Muslim countries whre they can legally cut off a woman's nose ,ears etc. even kill them, if they believe it is according to their beliefs.

If a woman chooses to have a child she should be just as protected, and no one should be able to force you to believe any differently, so both choices should be respected!

[Bricker]

What a shocker.

You said, "Talk doesn't put food on the table, health care, education and etc. to bring a fertile egg to full adulthood ..."

And as it happens, I had an exact answer for you; I spend considerable hours every month doing activities that address PRECISELY those concerns: food, health carem and education.

And I predicted that you'd find a way to keep your opinion intact.

And you did:
Serving on a board and helping a little bit isn't enough, you are not sacrificing like you expect a woman to do. If every pro-birther would really sacrifice as much as they should, there would be no starving children, here or in other countries.


Not sure how you read "helping a little bit," into what I wrote. But I note, with absoultely no surprise, that you've moved the goalposts.

[JThunder]

Only someone who has never actively served on the board of a pro-life charity would claim that this is only "helping a little bit." Such people have no idea of the kinds of sacrifices that these people make... and I say that as someone who spent years at the board chairman of one such charity.

I'd like to as monavis if he is concerned about child abuse and infanticide. I mean really, really concerned, not just spouting pious words. If not, then why isn't he making sacrifices and adopting all of these children who would otherwise be abused or put to death? That is, if the objection that he previously stated truly has merit.

[Blalron]

I believe there is a principled distinction to be made between human and animal life.

There are many principled vegetarians and vegans who disagree with you that animals are unworthy of protection, some of them for religious reasons that are just as sincere as your belief that human embryos have souls. Would you say that a Jainist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) lawmaker who held out on abortion and UHC unless animal slaughter is also banned being unprincipled? I'd say he's principled, but at the same time not being reasonable, because the chances of animal slaughter being banned in this country in the near future is virtually zero and blocking legislation because of that one issue isn't going to do a lick of good for anyone. Blocking it does nothing to advance his cause in the long run and only causes needless suffering.

[monavis]

What a shocker.

You said, "Talk doesn't put food on the table, health care, education and etc. to bring a fertile egg to full adulthood ..."

And as it happens, I had an exact answer for you; I spend considerable hours every month doing activities that address PRECISELY those concerns: food, health carem and education.

And I predicted that you'd find a way to keep your opinion intact.

And you did:


Not sure how you read "helping a little bit," into what I wrote. But I note, with absoultely no surprise, that you've moved the goalposts.

You expect a woman to sacrifice her self ,and any children she has for her life time (and theirs because she cannot support her children(educate,clothe, see they get heath care,etc.)because you want her to use her body for a brood mare purpose.

I say it is a little bit you do, because a few baby articles does not fix a woman's situation. If she works she is having some one else raise her child and misses out on a lot of things that are good for her and her child(or children). That is and should be her decision not yours.You make no mention of caring for the children or women for their life time. That is where I set the goal post, I didn't move it just thought you would understand the difference between a year or two to a life time that you want the woman to commit to.

How many children have you had, how many have you carried, and also consider the woman's partener;what kind of partener does she have to help her.

People are appalled by adultry, but do not consider the husband who sits in a tavern every night with the woman alone with the children etc. It should be up to the individual woman what her body and mind can take. I had a large family but I wanted them and had the means to care for them, but there are a lot of women who cannot do what I could, so I believe it should be up to the woman and she should be helped to avoid a pregnancy, thus avoiding the need for an abortion!

Of course I am not a prophet like you are,but I have lived long enough to see the results of what happens when a woman cannot hamdle pregnancy or child bearing.physicaly ,financially and mentally!

[monavis]

Only someone who has never actively served on the board of a pro-life charity would claim that this is only "helping a little bit." Such people have no idea of the kinds of sacrifices that these people make... and I say that as someone who spent years at the board chairman of one such charity.

I'd like to as monavis if he is concerned about child abuse and infanticide. I mean really, really concerned, not just spouting pious words. If not, then why isn't he making sacrifices and adopting all of these children who would otherwise be abused or put to death? That is, if the objection that he previously stated truly has merit.

My saying bricker's helping a little bit,was in comparison to the life time of the woman and child. He is doing what he does voluntarily. The woman in his way would have no choice! I have volunteered at a senior center, did charity work from my home, but never thought of it as a sacrifice, a volunteer can quit at any time a woman cannot if everyone thought as Bricker does. Concider the children who are starving to death in third world countries, and in places where a woman is considered a possion!

If every woman had the morning after pill available there would be very little, if any need for an abortion!

[Bricker]

Original goalpost:
Talk doesn't put food on the table, health care, education and etc. to bring a fertile egg to full adulthood ,and it is my opinion that if a person is really interested in the welfare of the woman and born (or yet unborn) child they would put their money where their mouth is!

New goalpost:
My saying bricker's helping a little bit,was in comparison to the life time of the woman and child. He is doing what he does voluntarily.

[monavis]

Original goalpost:


New goalpost:

Perhaps I wasn't clear,the egg being fertlized, implanted in the woman's womb the being born, and raised to adulthood has always been my goalpost. That is the years for which help is needed.

I find most pro_birthers are against government giving aid to the woman and her children and do not want a tax increase. One needs to look to Haiti to see what over population and poverty does!

Most (That I know) do not want what they refer to as socalism, and are ultra conservatives, even though Jesus was a Socialistic person and a liberal!!At least His actions show that!

[Bricker]

Perhaps I wasn't clear,the egg being fertlized, implanted in the woman's womb the being born, and raised to adulthood has always been my goalpost. That is the years for which help is needed.

But you also suggested that I, personally, was only contributing "talk" to this goal.

[monavis]

But you also suggested that I, personally, was only contributing "talk" to this goal.

Perhaps you are doing something,but you expect a lot more from the woman, she is to sacrifice her entire life, and the life of any children she may already have ,so you can condem her for her use of her body and her choice to do what is best for her mental, physicial, and emotional health, and the finances of her family.You are volunteering and can quit at any time, but you do not want to give her a choice or understand the reasons of why she may make the decison she does.

As I see it, the ability to prevent a pregnancy to begin with, is money and time better spent; then give cribs, diapers etc. to all poor woman who make the choice to have a child, (even in 3d world countries) would be better spent.

[Bricker]

Perhaps you are doing something,but you expect a lot more from the woman, she is to sacrifice her entire life, and the life of any children she may already have ,so you can condem her for her use of her body and her choice to do what is best for her mental, physicial, and emotional health, and the finances of her family.You are volunteering and can quit at any time, but you do not want to give her a choice or understand the reasons of why she may make the decison she does.

As I see it, the ability to prevent a pregnancy to begin with, is money and time better spent; then give cribs, diapers etc. to all poor woman who make the choice to have a child, (even in 3d world countries) would be better spent.

How am I hindering her ability to prevent a pregnancy to begin with?

Once conceived, I do ask that she devote the approximately nine months necessary to ensure her child can live apart from her, yes. But Since I enthusiastically support adoption, I'm not sure why you believe I'm asking her to sacrifice the entirety of her life.

Nor does your reply change the initial fact that you offered a goal, found I could answer it, and quickly shifted to another goalpost. Most amusing about that is your current desire to avoid admitting it. You could simply say, "Yes, i did switch goals, because I stated the first one poorly;" you could say, "Yes, I did change the goal, because your answer made me realize my original goal wasn't the right one;" you could say a whole host of things that would acknowledge that I answered your first objection.

But instead, you try to dance away from it. Why is that?

[Le Jacquelope]

Only someone who has never actively served on the board of a pro-life charity would claim that this is only "helping a little bit." Such people have no idea of the kinds of sacrifices that these people make... and I say that as someone who spent years at the board chairman of one such charity.
How does this compare to adopting a child and spending 18 years, 24/7, raising that child?

As a fence-sitting (pro-life leaning) person myself, I've adopted one, and am working on adopting another.

Please explain to us what you do on the board?

I'd like to as monavis if he is concerned about child abuse and infanticide. I mean really, really concerned, not just spouting pious words. If not, then why isn't he making sacrifices and adopting all of these children who would otherwise be abused or put to death? That is, if the objection that he previously stated truly has merit.
It's not Monavis's job to be compassionate. Sad to say, but it is true. The pro-choice crowd (pro-death, really; even if a fetus could be made viable they still want to kill them for stem cell harvesting and experimentation purposes) doesn't base their views on compassion for others. They base it on selfishness. Blame the fetus for the results of their actions. Punish the fetus for being an inconvenience-er, I mean, "don't doom them to a life of being unwanted!" Kill the fetus because s/he cannot fight back. Deny the unborn a voice because they can't speak up for themselves. The strong step on the weak. That's their definition of freedom: the right to say "fuck off" to any obligation of compassion.

[Raskolnikov]

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.

I guess I don't understand this? Doctors in Britian make more the US doctors. (Doctors in Germany make less but then again they don't have $175,000 in debt upon graduating med school)

does a 10 min. MRI of somebody's neck really cost $1,200 dollars?

should a polysomnogram (sleep study) cost $4,500 dollars?

does one aspirin tablet at the hospital really cost $6.00 dollars?

Should a 4 day stay at a hospital , 3 of those being post-surgery recovery, really need to cost $45,000 dollars?

funny how Medicare, who only insures elderly (people that tend to need more pills, surgeries, procedures and tests) and has an administrative cost of 3-4%, can pay less for the vast majority of medical procedures than for profit private insurance companies.

[Le Jacquelope]

I guess I don't understand this? Doctors in Britian make more the US doctors. (Doctors in Germany make less but then again they don't have $175,000 in debt upon graduating med school)

does a 10 min. MRI of somebody's neck really cost $1,200 dollars?

should a polysomnogram (sleep study) cost $4,500 dollars?

does one aspirin tablet at the hospital really cost $6.00 dollars?

Should a 4 day stay at a hospital , 3 of those being post-surgery recovery, really need to cost $45,000 dollars?

funny how Medicare, who only insures elderly (people that tend to need more pills, surgeries, procedures and tests) and has an administrative cost of 3-4%, can pay less for the vast majority of medical procedures than for profit private insurance companies.
It's all the CEO salaries and stuff that loads down the private companies. (just kidding; trying to be humorous here. hope that ain't against the rules...)

[The Tooth]

Not necessarily true.

To take another example, the Pope has often said that condom use represents an error, and he's also said that sex should be confined to a martial, monogamous relationship. Do you see how the two of those go together? People have criticized the Pope for his comments on condoms, pointing out how effective condoms are in stopping the spread of HIV. But if people who eschewed condom use ALSO followed the Pope's guidance on sex only within marriage, then the spread of HIV would be stopped.

In my opinion, abortion and health care are similarly intertwined. A society that is willing to slaughter its most defenseless members cannot gain grace by then turning cynically around and purporting to provide health care. It is completely contradictory.


Your government is not a theocracy; attaining grace is not its job and it is not obliged in any way, shape, or form to listen to your pope. You are. You said it yourself, yours is an all-or-nothing religion. As soon as your church came out in support of adequate health care you switched from that to "I don't have to obey my church unless my government does," which is nonsense because your government is not a christian body. This is all just a smokescreen for your own selfishness, as is decreeing those in need of healthcare to be "unproductive", something which isn't necessarily true and is certainly irrelevant.

On the subject of productivity, how productive are these fetuses anyway? Not very, I imagine. Odd that your want your tax dollars to go towards protecting those unproductive entities but not an out-of-work machinist with lung cancer or diabetes.

Why would you want your government to outlaw abortion without disbanding its military and adopting a pacifist philosophy across the board anyway? Seems to me that having one without the other is also contradictory (by your lights), but you don't seem to be concerned about that. Why not?

Your entire argument is a mish-mash of contradictions and mistaken assumptions.

[monavis]

How am I hindering her ability to prevent a pregnancy to begin with?

Once conceived, I do ask that she devote the approximately nine months necessary to ensure her child can live apart from her, yes. But Since I enthusiastically support adoption, I'm not sure why you believe I'm asking her to sacrifice the entirety of her life.

Nor does your reply change the initial fact that you offered a goal, found I could answer it, and quickly shifted to another goalpost. Most amusing about that is your current desire to avoid admitting it. You could simply say, "Yes, i did switch goals, because I stated the first one poorly;" you could say, "Yes, I did change the goal, because your answer made me realize my original goal wasn't the right one;" you could say a whole host of things that would acknowledge that I answered your first objection.

But instead, you try to dance away from it. Why is that?

You are misquoting me, you call what I said a goal post,Your answer had nothing to do with my position.

It is more than 9 months, a woman never forgets the child she gave birth to. Perhaps you have closed your mind to accepting the fact that you want her to be forced to use her body like a brood mare? How many have you carried in your womb? There is a great stress for a woman to carry a child and it doesn't end at 9 months. There are many women who have had post child birth depression, some have even taken their own life, and some even killed their children!

Because you can do something with out stress, doesn't mean there are people who can. You feel for your (apparent) religious reasons that she should be forced to carry a fertile egg to frutitation, because you want her to do as you conscience dictates. If you were forced to give a body part to some one you (I believe would rebel) as most people would. The woman is the only one with her doctor's advice should make the choice. Nor should any woman be forced to have an abortion.

Money, and time ,better spent on finding a sure proof birth control and the morning after pill. Because some religions believe it shouldn't be used, people not of the persuasion should not have to follow those beliefs. Abortion is physically hard on a woman so prevention for those who do not want to be pregnant can do so. One needs just to look at countries like Haiti where it is 80% RC, and see the results of encouraging large families through guilt, to see the suffering the people go through every day.And did so even before the earth quake!

[monavis]

How does this compare to adopting a child and spending 18 years, 24/7, raising that child?

As a fence-sitting (pro-life leaning) person myself, I've adopted one, and am working on adopting another.

Please explain to us what you do on the board?


It's not Monavis's job to be compassionate. Sad to say, but it is true. The pro-choice crowd (pro-death, really; even if a fetus could be made viable they still want to kill them for stem cell harvesting and experimentation purposes) doesn't base their views on compassion for others. They base it on selfishness. Blame the fetus for the results of their actions. Punish the fetus for being an inconvenience-er, I mean, "don't doom them to a life of being unwanted!" Kill the fetus because s/he cannot fight back. Deny the unborn a voice because they can't speak up for themselves. The strong step on the weak. That's their definition of freedom: the right to say "fuck off" to any obligation of compassion.

They do not just kill the embryo for the purpose of doing stem cell research! They do not use a feus for that! Can you look at a frozen embryo and say '"OH,What a cute baby? The embryo if not used would end up wasted. It is not a person yet. just like a horse 's embryo is not a horse. This is not a religious queston but one of biology.

Pro-choice people are really more pro-life that the so called ones who are really just pro-birth! Most of them could not give a hoot what happens to the egg once it becomes a person! Pro-choice people (for the most part) are interested in the already born,yes, even the woman. Many pro-birthers ,because they call them selves pro-life ,doesn't mean they are! They are the extreme conservatives who balk at paying taxes to support a woman once she has 4 or 5 kids she can't care for. They satisfy them selves by putting a few dollars in a collection box or help out about a few months of the childs life. I would like to see the Pro-birthers each adopt a family and support it (educate, feed ,train,house and see it has good medical care, until it reaches adult hood, to prove they are truly pro-life!

[Le Jacquelope]

They do not just kill the embryo for the purpose of doing stem cell research! They do not use a feus for that! Can you look at a frozen embryo and say '"OH,What a cute baby? The embryo if not used would end up wasted.
Even if there was a way to NOT destroy the embryo s/he would still be destroyed... because in the opinion of the scientific elite (as well as pro-choicers):

It is not a person yet. just like a horse 's embryo is not a horse. This is not a religious queston but one of biology.
Why is it not a person? What makes a horse embryo not a horse? What magical line must be crossed? Fertilization is a much more logical line than viability, which is itself a constantly moving goalpost. What makes a human embryo less human than a human newborn? That it got out of the womb alive? Again, that's a moving goalpost. Hell I recall the term "fetus ex utero" being used in some situations. Do they still use that? Ah, it appears they do (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x378.htm).

An embryo already has an assigned gender. You cannot say that about sperm and eggs. It's fairly common sense where the personhood line should be logically drawn: when science can tell you that a gender has been assigned and cell growth is in progress. Let nature take its course and you have a bouncing baby in 9 months.

But as I said, let's just be honest here; the entire definition of personhood in this case is about taking rights away from the powerless.

Pro-choice people are really more pro-life that the so called ones who are really just pro-birth! Most of them could not give a hoot what happens to the egg once it becomes a person!
I do not deny that a whole LOT of pro-lifers are merely pro-birth. But that is an unfortunate quirk of their mentality. It is not the NATURE of being pro-life. In fact there is very little that is LOGICALLY consistent with being pro-life and being anti-welfare, anti-social safety net, etc.

Pro-choice people (for the most part) are interested in the already born,yes, even the woman. Many pro-birthers ,because they call them selves pro-life ,doesn't mean they are!
Agreed. It doesn't necessarily mean they are pro-life in other areas. Some pro-lifers don't give a shit about the welfare of the pregnant woman. A select deranged few will shoot abortion doctors. You and I clearly condemn this bunch.

However to be pro-life does not mean you MUST be so hypocritical.

Pro-choicers also, FYI, include people who oppose welfare. Plus a lot of men who PAY their girlfriends to get abortions to make it go away. Plus a lot of fiscally conservative Republicans who see abortion as a way to avoid the "welfare mom problem". (Obviously I see no welfare mom problem; or specifically I do not see the "welfare mom" as the problem, but rather our pathetic excuse for an economy which totally fails its clear and obvious potential.) You may or may not be surprised to know that there are a LOT of pro-choice people who despise being levied extra taxes to help the down and out.

Pro-choicers also include Nobel prize winning geneticists who believe personhood shouldn't be conferred until 3 days after birth. But since I am not saying they are the face of the pro-choice movement, perhaps you shouldn't say some whackos are the face of the pro-life movement, eh?

They are the extreme conservatives who balk at paying taxes to support a woman once she has 4 or 5 kids she can't care for.
And you are talking to a liberal pro-lifer who would MUCH rather pay taxes to support a mother of 5 kids than bail out an ailing corporation which fucked itself by using lobbyists to stop legislation that would have kept it from driving itself into bankruptcy.

Still, you aren't wrong if your point is that a significant number of pro-lifers stop caring about the baby after s/he is born. As a pro-life leaning individual I openly profess that George Carlin was dead right about enough pro-lifers out there that his words are in fact wisdom: "If you're pre- born, you're fine. If you're pre-school you're fucked".

Still, though, in this case you're talking to a pro-life-leaning liberal who refuses to mince words in repudiating right wing/Scrooge style capitalism and all its tenets. I'm glad to pay taxes to support welfare moms, I despise paying taxes to support Halliburton's no-bid contracts and the bailout of the big banks, I've donated MANY hours to crisis pregnancy centers, supplies to the troops, money to charities, and I am also trying to figure out ways communities can support themselves and create local jobs.

They satisfy them selves by putting a few dollars in a collection box or help out about a few months of the childs life. I would like to see the Pro-birthers each adopt a family
Does one (and a second pending) kid suffice? Adoption is VERY difficult. I had to go all the way to Nigeria to adopt. Over here you're looking at tons of red tape and drama... but still my wife and I are paying for a single pregnant college student's medical care to carry her baby to term so we can adopt it. And she might still get an abortion or have a miscarriage, and our money we spent would go down the toilet.

and support it (educate, feed ,train,house and see it has good medical care, until it reaches adult hood, to prove they are truly pro-life!
I would like to see more pro-lifers distinguish themselves as pro-lifers and not merely pro-birthers in this manner as well.

But more importantly, I would like to see more of us compassionate pro-lifers get a voice in politics. There are a LOT of pro-lifers like me out there. We're just waiting for the liberals and Democrats to evolve into a Big Tent policy on abortion so we can take the pro-choicers AND the Scrooge capitalists by surprise.

And given that many pro-choicers still cling to this image of the selfish hypocritical pro-lifer, it will be one hell of a surprise when the pro-life liberal voice is finally heard.

[Le Jacquelope]

Oh and I also support abstinence education as a goal for potentially sexually active teens, but not without the backup plan of educating them on the use of condoms and contraception in case one thing leads to another. And I also support ANY person who is about to get sexually active, to get tested and demand the other person get tested.

So yeah... I kind of screw up the pro-choice propaganda machine a bit.

[monavis]

Even if there was a way to NOT destroy the embryo s/he would still be destroyed... because in the opinion of the scientific elite (as well as pro-choicers):


Why is it not a person? What makes a horse embryo not a horse? What magical line must be crossed? Fertilization is a much more logical line than viability, which is itself a constantly moving goalpost. What makes a human embryo less human than a human newborn? That it got out of the womb alive? Again, that's a moving goalpost. Hell I recall the term "fetus ex utero" being used in some situations. Do they still use that? Ah, it appears they do (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x378.htm).

An embryo already has an assigned gender. You cannot say that about sperm and eggs. It's fairly common sense where the personhood line should be logically drawn: when science can tell you that a gender has been assigned and cell growth is in progress. Let nature take its course and you have a bouncing baby in 9 months.

But as I said, let's just be honest here; the entire definition of personhood in this case is about taking rights away from the powerless.


I do not deny that a whole LOT of pro-lifers are merely pro-birth. But that is an unfortunate quirk of their mentality. It is not the NATURE of being pro-life. In fact there is very little that is LOGICALLY consistent with being pro-life and being anti-welfare, anti-social safety net, etc.


Agreed. It doesn't necessarily mean they are pro-life in other areas. Some pro-lifers don't give a shit about the welfare of the pregnant woman. A select deranged few will shoot abortion doctors. You and I clearly condemn this bunch.

However to be pro-life does not mean you MUST be so hypocritical.

Pro-choicers also, FYI, include people who oppose welfare. Plus a lot of men who PAY their girlfriends to get abortions to make it go away. Plus a lot of fiscally conservative Republicans who see abortion as a way to avoid the "welfare mom problem". (Obviously I see no welfare mom problem; or specifically I do not see the "welfare mom" as the problem, but rather our pathetic excuse for an economy which totally fails its clear and obvious potential.) You may or may not be surprised to know that there are a LOT of pro-choice people who despise being levied extra taxes to help the down and out.

Pro-choicers also include Nobel prize winning geneticists who believe personhood shouldn't be conferred until 3 days after birth. But since I am not saying they are the face of the pro-choice movement, perhaps you shouldn't say some whackos are the face of the pro-life movement, eh?


And you are talking to a liberal pro-lifer who would MUCH rather pay taxes to support a mother of 5 kids than bail out an ailing corporation which fucked itself by using lobbyists to stop legislation that would have kept it from driving itself into bankruptcy.

Still, you aren't wrong if your point is that a significant number of pro-lifers stop caring about the baby after s/he is born. As a pro-life leaning individual I openly profess that George Carlin was dead right about enough pro-lifers out there that his words are in fact wisdom: "If you're pre- born, you're fine. If you're pre-school you're fucked".

Still, though, in this case you're talking to a pro-life-leaning liberal who refuses to mince words in repudiating right wing/Scrooge style capitalism and all its tenets. I'm glad to pay taxes to support welfare moms, I despise paying taxes to support Halliburton's no-bid contracts and the bailout of the big banks, I've donated MANY hours to crisis pregnancy centers, supplies to the troops, money to charities, and I am also trying to figure out ways communities can support themselves and create local jobs.


Does one (and a second pending) kid suffice? Adoption is VERY difficult. I had to go all the way to Nigeria to adopt. Over here you're looking at tons of red tape and drama... but still my wife and I are paying for a single pregnant college student's medical care to carry her baby to term so we can adopt it. And she might still get an abortion or have a miscarriage, and our money we spent would go down the toilet.


I would like to see more pro-lifers distinguish themselves as pro-lifers and not merely pro-birthers in this manner as well.

But more importantly, I would like to see more of us compassionate pro-lifers get a voice in politics. There are a LOT of pro-lifers like me out there. We're just waiting for the liberals and Democrats to evolve into a Big Tent policy on abortion so we can take the pro-choicers AND the Scrooge capitalists by surprise.

And given that many pro-choicers still cling to this image of the selfish hypocritical pro-lifer, it will be one hell of a surprise when the pro-life liberal voice is finally heard.

Then you aould be just as pleased if I sold you a horse embryo so you could pay several hundred dollars to ride, or a fertile egg to feed your family instead of a full grown chicken? Since there is no difference what would the difference be?

A good excuse in my opinion, to try to keep a woman a slave to being a brood mare. Just like people used religion to justify slavery in the past.

It is a matter of pushing your religious beliefs on all others not a matter of biology.

I commend you for adopting "A" child, because you wanted one,but you didn't take into consideration the woman who would endanger her life to bring the egg to frutation. Nor did you state how many children she already had.each case is different and that should be a good reason why it should be an individule woman's right to decide what she wishes to do with her body.But that doesn't take care of the hundreds of thousands that die of starvation or some illness every year in 3d world countries or even using Haiti as an example where the country is said to be 80% RC, and are taught that birth control is a sin or use the most un-natural method of which they approve!

[monavis]

Oh and I also support abstinence education as a goal for potentially sexually active teens, but not without the backup plan of educating them on the use of condoms and contraception in case one thing leads to another. And I also support ANY person who is about to get sexually active, to get tested and demand the other person get tested.

So yeah... I kind of screw up the pro-choice propaganda machine a bit.

I was a teen ager in the 40's. Abstinence was the only method taught (Just like Sarah's daughter was) It just doesn't work. There are many needy families who use the so called natural way and still have children they cannot afford or want. So then all these families should be supported by those who call themselves pro- life and are against providing the morning after pill or the other birth control methods.

[Chronos]

Abstinence works better than any other method, if it's actually used. It has in common with every other method that it doesn't work if you don't use it.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Abstinence works better than any other method, if it's actually used. It has in common with every other method that it doesn't work if you don't use it.

Is it easier/more likely to be used than a condom? If not than a wrench that never gets used isn't a very useful wrench.

Which method would a horny couple (remember hormones are a normal human thing, and ultimately the fault of whatever created humans) be more likely to use a condom, or abstinence?

Plus I think abstinence only types really don't understand the nature of people at all.

Consider the phrase "one thing lead to another" which means an escalating feed back loop where one slightly intimate act produced pleasure which made a slightly more intimate act seem okay, and so fourth so that a kiss leads to some dude squirting man gravy all over the pink cave amid moans that'd wake the dead.

Now abstinence only types would cluck their judgmentle throats, and wag their fingers about it getting that far, but they'd ignore a fundamental reality about human nature. We're genetically closest to bonobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior)s. The mating urge is an instinct that clouds reason so that sticking it in can seem like an urgent matter and "what about future I mean what are the chances? just this once is okay."?

Now you might say that logic is dumb, and I'd agree, even in the heat of passion, but you're basically arguing to leave dumb people to unintentionally reproduce while smarter people don't.

According to everything we know about science, what happens to a trait that discourages reproduction?

I say better dumb people and smart people both have tools, that they'll use, to control fertility and reproduce as a choice, not an accident.


Jesus wants children to grow up in healthy stable families who are at a point they can properly provided for their kids, yea?


further I submit that if "sex is a sin. Sins are forgiven. So stick it in.".

[The Tao's Revenge]

Further I submit that hormones are strongest, and cloud judgment the most, when people have the least amount of experience to deal with them: teens and early adult hood. Further the inherent naivety of youth doesn't help this. Who's fault is design that if you attribute humans as created beings?

[monavis]

Abstinence works better than any other method, if it's actually used. It has in common with every other method that it doesn't work if you don't use it.

You are right, but human's have a sex drive for a reason,and very few people have that low of a sex drive.For the ones who abstain it may be easy, but I know of a lot of people in bad marriages, because of it's use. Abstinence is the most un-natural Method of birth control!

[Chronos]

I never said it was natural. No method of birth control is natural. The commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" isn't just written in a book; it's coded into our genes by billions of years of evolution. That said, humans do plenty of other things that are unnatural, too.

[Raiko]

My saying bricker's helping a little bit,was in comparison to the life time of the woman and child. He is doing what he does voluntarily. The woman in his way would have no choice! I have volunteered at a senior center, did charity work from my home, but never thought of it as a sacrifice, a volunteer can quit at any time a woman cannot if everyone thought as Bricker does. Concider the children who are starving to death in third world countries, and in places where a woman is considered a possion!

If every woman had the morning after pill available there would be very little, if any need for an abortion!

If that is your argument then you would similarly beleive that a woman who can no longer take care of her eight year old child would have the right to murder him/her. It is (in most cases) the womans choice to involve herself in activities that would make her pregnant (I don't say sex because for the really crazy bitches out there you have in-vitro to give you eight children you don't need saving you a huge amount of time and messy coitus!) so in this way she is choosing to have the commitment but it sounds to me as if monavis' bleeding heart would not be bandaged even if bricker personally carried, birthed and funded every child of irresponsible parents through their twenty first birthday (though that would be one hell of a 21st!)

personally I think women should keep their children if they weren't raped or otherwise unwillfully impregnated monavis seems to think every pregnant woman deserves to have responsibility magically lifted from them and I suggest you move to the forest where you can live in a tree with elves and be fed cookies and have all responsibility taken from your shoulders (LSD not included)

That being said I won't tolerate (as if it matters) any more needless laws prohibiting or endorsing abortion, in this regard I am both pro life and pro choice as any sane person should be. I don't need laws telling me it's bad to use abortion as birth control but at the same time I don't want stupid people who would want to use abortion as birth control raising children that I will later have to deal with (kick the shit out of for trying to steal my car.)

[monavis]

I never said it was natural. No method of birth control is natural. The commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" isn't just written in a book; it's coded into our genes by billions of years of evolution. That said, humans do plenty of other things that are unnatural, too.

Being fruitful and multiply is something a human wrote, so in that case one is believing in what some human said thousands of years ago!

Not all people have the ability to multiply either so some genes must be missing that!

[monavis]

If that is your argument then you would similarly beleive that a woman who can no longer take care of her eight year old child would have the right to murder him/her. It is (in most cases) the womans choice to involve herself in activities that would make her pregnant (I don't say sex because for the really crazy bitches out there you have in-vitro to give you eight children you don't need saving you a huge amount of time and messy coitus!) so in this way she is choosing to have the commitment but it sounds to me as if monavis' bleeding heart would not be bandaged even if bricker personally carried, birthed and funded every child of irresponsible parents through their twenty first birthday (though that would be one hell of a 21st!)

personally I think women should keep their children if they weren't raped or otherwise unwillfully impregnated monavis seems to think every pregnant woman deserves to have responsibility magically lifted from them and I suggest you move to the forest where you can live in a tree with elves and be fed cookies and have all responsibility taken from your shoulders (LSD not included)

That being said I won't tolerate (as if it matters) any more needless laws prohibiting or endorsing abortion, in this regard I am both pro life and pro choice as any sane person should be. I don't need laws telling me it's bad to use abortion as birth control but at the same time I don't want stupid people who would want to use abortion as birth control raising children that I will later have to deal with (kick the shit out of for trying to steal my car.)

NO, I do not think a woman has the right to kill her child of any age after it is born, nor did I ever imply such a thing. I am talking about a possible child, not one yet formed, such as a fertile egg, that is far from being a person, just like a fertile apple blossom is not yet an apple.

I doubt that many women use abortion as a method of birth-control.It is not an easy choice for the woman and because i never considered an abortion doesn't mean I should force an other woman to do as I wish. I have not lived in her shoes, I do not know her financial, mental,or physical situation. I am not the conscience of the world.

[monavis]

If that is your argument then you would similarly beleive that a woman who can no longer take care of her eight year old child would have the right to murder him/her. It is (in most cases) the womans choice to involve herself in activities that would make her pregnant (I don't say sex because for the really crazy bitches out there you have in-vitro to give you eight children you don't need saving you a huge amount of time and messy coitus!) so in this way she is choosing to have the commitment but it sounds to me as if monavis' bleeding heart would not be bandaged even if bricker personally carried, birthed and funded every child of irresponsible parents through their twenty first birthday (though that would be one hell of a 21st!)

personally I think women should keep their children if they weren't raped or otherwise unwillfully impregnated monavis seems to think every pregnant woman deserves to have responsibility magically lifted from them and I suggest you move to the forest where you can live in a tree with elves and be fed cookies and have all responsibility taken from your shoulders (LSD not included)

That being said I won't tolerate (as if it matters) any more needless laws prohibiting or endorsing abortion, in this regard I am both pro life and pro choice as any sane person should be. I don't need laws telling me it's bad to use abortion as birth control but at the same time I don't want stupid people who would want to use abortion as birth control raising children that I will later have to deal with (kick the shit out of for trying to steal my car.)

As a post script I would think you and Bricker could take care of all of the unwanted pregnancy's that would surely solve some of the problems :)

Having a morning after pill for every woman of child bearing age would sure cut down on the need for an abortion!It would give her a choice and no child would suffer.

When one speaks of the right to Life they have to consider the fact that some religions think every martial act should be open to bearing a child! Human life began eons ago that is a fact, so it isn't the right to life but the right to birth inspite of the woman's rights to her life!

[The Tao's Revenge]

Anyway this is a huge hijack.


Healthcare is a human right in any meaningful sense of the phrase human rights. The Pope says so, and Catholics gonna argue with their freaking Pope?

[Lobohan]

The Pope says so, and Catholics gonna argue with their freaking Pope?Bricker will.

[Bricker]

Bricker will.

Yes.

I find it particularly fascinating that Catholics are vilified for blindly following the Pope... except when the Pope's pronouncements happen to coincide with the rhetor's desired outcome, in which case Catholics are vaguely disloyal or otherwise to be condemned for questioning the Pope.

In any event, as I hinted before, the Catholic faith has a certain set of dogma, beliefs which cannot be questioned, and a much wider set of beliefs which a particular individual Catholic need not share.

[Chronos]

Not all people have the ability to multiply either so some genes must be missing that! And yet those people generally still try very hard to do so. Why do you think people have sex so much to begin with? Yes, yes, because it's fun, but why is it fun in the first place? Because organisms which have sex a lot leave more offspring behind, spreading their sex-is-fun genes.

[Raiko]

Healthcare is not an inalienable right. Inalienable rights consist of things that should come first and foremost on the governments agenda whether their national budget is trillions of dollars or a few shells and a chicken. Things like making sure your people aren't killing each other, that you arent endorsing slavery, and that your citizens are reasonably well cared for with the means you have at your disposal, this does not include paying for all their medical bills, it is sufficient to make it available. Universal healthcare is a nice perk for more wealthy countries but it is not an inalienable right.

[monavis]

Yes.

I find it particularly fascinating that Catholics are vilified for blindly following the Pope... except when the Pope's pronouncements happen to coincide with the rhetor's desired outcome, in which case Catholics are vaguely disloyal or otherwise to be condemned for questioning the Pope.

In any event, as I hinted before, the Catholic faith has a certain set of dogma, beliefs which cannot be questioned, and a much wider set of beliefs which a particular individual Catholic need not share.

In other words it is mind control? Because the RCC teaches you can't think differently is purely a teaching of the RCC, not necessarily the truth!

[Bricker]

In other words it is mind control? Because the RCC teaches you can't think differently is purely a teaching of the RCC, not necessarily the truth!

It is difficult for me to imagine an explanation for the disparity between what I said ("...a much wider set of beliefs which a particular individual Catholic need not share...") and what you summarized ("mind control").

[Evil Captor]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

Myself, I stop short of calling health care a right, but nevertheless something that a non-third-world country should be able to make affordable to everyone. Like education.

But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope's influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what's their take on this?

Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform?

Americans generally and conservative Americans in particular have a long history of ignoring inconvenient things religious leaders say about some topics while wrapping themselves smugly in holy vestments with regard to others. Hypocrisy is their friend!

[Buck Godot]

Even if there was a way to NOT destroy the embryo s/he would still be destroyed... because in the opinion of the scientific elite (as well as pro-choicers):

CITE? I have never heard this even from the most vocal stem cell proponents.



Is it easier/more likely to be used than a condom? If not than a wrench that never gets used isn't a very useful wrench.

.
Or as I like to say, you could prevent all traffic fatalities by having no one drive, but that doesn't mean that seatbelts and airbags are a bad idea.

[Le Jacquelope]

Let me get this straight.

For those who believe health care is not an inalienable right, you believe that you should not pay taxes to prevent a baby from dying even though the resources exist to keep this child alive?

You can't be arsed to spend an extra buck or two into taxes in order to save someone's life?

Why do you even want to live in a civilized society? What is the point of living in a society if you're going to live by jungle rules?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101209/ts_yblog_thelookout/after-budget-cuts-indiana-baby-denied-life-saving-treatment/print

"After budget cuts, Indiana baby denied life-saving treatment"

[Le Jacquelope]

Then you aould be just as pleased if I sold you a horse embryo so you could pay several hundred dollars to ride, or a fertile egg to feed your family instead of a full grown chicken? Since there is no difference what would the difference be?
Going by your logic a newborn horse is not a horse either, nor is a baby chick a chicken. Your argument reeks of semantic panic.

A good excuse in my opinion, to try to keep a woman a slave to being a brood mare. Just like people used religion to justify slavery in the past.

It is a matter of pushing your religious beliefs on all others not a matter of biology.
Brood mare? And you accuse me of religious beliefs while you come up with madness like that? Not being able to kill someone with a beating heart is slavery? Where did you come up with that one?*

I commend you for adopting "A" child, because you wanted one,but you didn't take into consideration the woman who would endanger her life to bring the egg to frutation. Nor did you state how many children she already had.each case is different and that should be a good reason why it should be an individule woman's right to decide what she wishes to do with her body.
But it's not just her body that she's doing something with. It's also someone else's. Different DNA, different blood type, all of that. Measurable brain waves and heart beats, too. These are all facts established by embryology.

"Her body"? You're not even pushing science with your argument at this point - you're pushing myths. That's called religious beliefs, pardner.

But that doesn't take care of the hundreds of thousands that die of starvation or some illness every year in 3d world countries
Starvation will never go away no matter how many you abort.

or even using Haiti as an example where the country is said to be 80% RC, and are taught that birth control is a sin or use the most un-natural method of which they approve!
Uhm, why are you bringing up the Roman Catholic Church? I believe in contraception. Go find a fanatical RC straw man to beat on, perhaps your arguments are better suited for them.

* Oh yeah and before you bring it up, I also support a zero hope of escape option for fathers who try to escape child support.

[sleeping]

Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don't they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don't have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.

So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.

We are quite content to provide others with the treatments that ensure continued health. In fact, most of us prefer single payer healthcare because it allows to actually keep the Hippocratic Oath by which we are supposed to be bound. Not everyone is like you.

[Bricker]

We are quite content to provide others with the treatments that ensure continued health. In fact, most of us prefer single payer healthcare because it allows to actually keep the Hippocratic Oath by which we are supposed to be bound. Not everyone is like you.

If I recall the poll I saw, only about 10% of doctors favored a single-payer option. The majority favored a public option, and about 30% favored private only.

Or am I mistaken?

[sleeping]

If I recall the poll I saw, only about 10% of doctors favored a single-payer option. The majority favored a public option, and about 30% favored private only.

Or am I mistaken?

Nope:


Single-Payer National Health Insurance: Physicians' Views
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:300-304.

Results: When asked which structure would provide the best care for the most people for a fixed amount of money, 63.5% of physicians chose a single-payer system ; 10.7%, managed care; and 25.8%, a fee-for-service system. Most respondents would give up income to reduce paperwork, agree that it is government's responsibility to ensure the provision of medical care, believe that insurance firms should not play a major role in health care delivery, and would prefer to work under a salary system.

[Bricker]

Here's the poll (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960) I was thinking of, from 2009.

[Bricker]

Nope:

And that poll doesn't ask what they prefer -- it asks them what option they think would provide care to the most people for a fixed amount ofmoney.

[ElvisL1ves]

As if anyone with a conscience would not prefer that? :dubious:

[monavis]

It is difficult for me to imagine an explanation for the disparity between what I said ("...a much wider set of beliefs which a particular individual Catholic need not share...") and what you summarized ("mind control").
A person under mind control doesn't realize he/she is under mind control!

[monavis]

Going by your logic a newborn horse is not a horse either, nor is a baby chick a chicken. Your argument reeks of semantic panic.


Brood mare? And you accuse me of religious beliefs while you come up with madness like that? Not being able to kill someone with a beating heart is slavery? Where did you come up with that one?*


But it's not just her body that she's doing something with. It's also someone else's. Different DNA, different blood type, all of that. Measurable brain waves and heart beats, too. These are all facts established by embryology.

"Her body"? You're not even pushing science with your argument at this point - you're pushing myths. That's called religious beliefs, pardner.


Starvation will never go away no matter how many you abort.


Uhm, why are you bringing up the Roman Catholic Church? I believe in contraception. Go find a fanatical RC straw man to beat on, perhaps your arguments are better suited for them.

* Oh yeah and before you bring it up, I also support a zero hope of escape option for fathers who try to escape child support.

Once a horse is born you can tell it is a baby horse. a when the egg has formed in to a chicken it can be recognized as a chicken, until then it is just a fertile egg and in other animals once it can be recognized as it's species then it can be called that...just as when a pollenated apple blossom once forms an apple then it can be said to be an apple. Biology is all the same in that sense.

I still contend that there are means to at least try to prevent conception if a child is not wanted at that time, and methods should be made readily available to the woman. Preventing conception should be better than her needing to put herself in danger of a pregnancy, and she should have the right(which she does have by law) to use her body as she wishes not some one else making decisions for her!

I wonder how many homeless women or families you have taken under your roof,or support for 18 years?

You can have your right to your thinking but it shouldn't be pushed on others, you do not know their circumstances, nor do I.

[Bricker]

A person under mind control doesn't realize he/she is under mind control!

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[Evil Captor]

As if anyone with a conscience would not prefer that? :dubious:

You have to understand, to conservatives ... only the rich matter.

[Ají de Gallina]

You have to understand, to conservatives ... only the rich matter.

Now you tell me!!! :smack:
You could've told me yesterday before my politically conservative catholic friends and I spent Saturday morning at a Lima shantytown building houses, distributing food, clothes, gifts, a new stove for the soup kitchen book for the kids and gave them free classes for the end-of-year tests.
Man! We could've just distributed caviar and Moët & Chandon at the country club!!!!
I promise you, next week it's "FREE TUNE UP FOR HUMMERS AND BEEMERS" and none of the helping-the-poor thing.
And, of course, the free clinic has got to go.

[Le Jacquelope]

Once a horse is born you can tell it is a baby horse.
Science can tell a lot earlier than that.

a when the egg has formed in to a chicken it can be recognized as a chicken
Ohhkay. Yeah, I take it this is not a scientific discussion but rather one of "what it looks like to me". Gotcha.

I still contend that there are means to at least try to prevent conception
Hence my support of contraception. Duh.


if a child is not wanted at that time, and methods should be made readily available to the woman. Preventing conception should be better than her needing to put herself in danger of a pregnancy, and she should have the right(which she does have by law) to use her body as she wishes not some one else making decisions for her!
I wish I could have availed myself of this mythical right when they asked me to sign up for selective service. :rolleyes:

Once again, I'll explain to you what science already knows:
Abortion is not just about her body - it involves someone else's.

Please, before you go on with this, take a look into an embryology book.

[monavis]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Whose ignorance? I happen to know a lot of Latin!

Because do not like to hear what I say doesn't imply ignorance nor would i consider your argument ignorance because I disagree, or see things from a different vantage point that you!

[monavis]

Science can tell a lot earlier than that.


Ohhkay. Yeah, I take it this is not a scientific discussion but rather one of "what it looks like to me". Gotcha.


Hence my support of contraception. Duh.


I wish I could have availed myself of this mythical right when they asked me to sign up for selective service. :rolleyes:

Once again, I'll explain to you what science already knows:
Abortion is not just about her body - it involves someone else's.

Please, before you go on with this, take a look into an embryology book.

So does a kidney implant mean somebody else's. But you would hollar if made to give a kidney with out your wishing to. Carrying a fertile egg does involve a woman's body, and she should have the right to decide how she can, or will use it!

When you have 14 children or are carrying your 15th then let me know.Until then I agree to disagree with you. And also consider war or self defense that is also another already born person being killed, and involves the death of many innocent born children, women, and men. If one is wrong then so is the other!

Oh, and I did look in an embryo book, and until a certain stage all embryo's look alike, even a frog! They look like a tadpole. In a petri dish they just look like some cells until further developed. Think of how many little possible babies that die because a man ejaculates. or they don't meet the ova!

Because something 'will' become a person doesn't make it a person, any more than an apple blossom is an apple.

[Le Jacquelope]

So does a kidney implant mean somebody else's.
:smack:
You seriously need to crack an embryology book if you do not understand the difference between an embryo and a kidney implant. I mean, for starters, a kidney will never grow into a teenager.

But you would hollar if made to give a kidney with out your wishing to. Carrying a fertile egg does involve a woman's body, and she should have the right to decide how she can, or will use it!
What about the embryo's choice? All this choice you keep talking about is glaringly one-sided.

When you have 14 children or are carrying your 15th then let me know.
It would be even more hilarious if you were child #15. I'd expect you to ask your mother to abort you. Oh wait. I forgot. The only people who are pro-choice are the ones who got the privilege of being born.

Until then I agree to disagree with you. And also consider war or self defense that is also another already born person being killed, and involves the death of many innocent born children, women, and men. If one is wrong then so is the other!
Ah yes, equating an unborn baby with a murderer.

An embryo, Charles Manson, what could possibly separate the two?

Oh, and I did look in an embryo book, and until a certain stage all embryo's look alike
There's more to it than looks. Wow. Did you really look at the words or did you just look at the pictures?

[monavis]

:smack:
You seriously need to crack an embryology book if you do not understand the difference between an embryo and a kidney implant. I mean, for starters, a kidney will never grow into a teenager.


What about the embryo's choice? All this choice you keep talking about is glaringly one-sided.


It would be even more hilarious if you were child #15. I'd expect you to ask your mother to abort you. Oh wait. I forgot. The only people who are pro-choice are the ones who got the privilege of being born.


Ah yes, equating an unborn baby with a murderer.

An embryo, Charles Manson, what could possibly separate the two?


There's more to it than looks. Wow. Did you really look at the words or did you just look at the pictures?

You sure mis understand me! I am talking about a woman's right to have a child or not, how she uses her body. An embryo doesn't have rights unless the mother gives that right to use her body.

For children who are starving to death may wish they were not born and the many suicides show that do to some extent.

How could I equate a embryo or a baby with Charles Manson? I sure didn't.nor did I compare a kidney with a person, it is the use of another's body that I have tried to show you. You wouldn't want some one to dictate how you use your body with out your permission. That is what you are expecting the woman to do. True prolife people care about the woman's life more than a fertile egg!

Comming from a family or 14 I know the abuse one can get when it is an unwanted child, and the stress it puts on the woman and her husband. If I had not been concieved or born I would not know the difference so I would not have suffered many years of much abuse, nor would my siblings, and yes, my youngest sister wished she had never been born,and she did die young.

If one doesn't live in another's body they do not know what another goes through, and the law of our country gives a woman a right to decide for her self how her body is used by another. It protects her from the religious view that many have regarding how she handles it. There is a point where the law does not allow a woman to abort,( before it begins to take on person hood) by then she should have made her decision unless her life is in danger.

If your wife or child was in a room filled with many frozen embryo's and it was on fire and you had the choice of taking your loved one to safety, or save just the frozen embryo's I guess you would let your loved one's die and save the embryo's even if they may never reach the personhood state. If not, it shows you truly believe a born person has the right to life over a not yet formed person!