Abortion Debate

Post by gamerunknown

As for this "Christians defending sperm", I think you mean Catholics, not Christians. Pretty big difference.

No True Scotsman.

As for the Catholic prohibition of prophylaxis, it's based on the Parable of the Sower, Genesis 38 and the theological arguments of natural law.

Post by MyTie

No True Scotsman.

A psychologist is not a mathematician. They are both scientists, but one is an adherant to the science of psychology, and the other to the science of math. To say that the psychologist is not a mathematician is not to say that the psychologist is not a scientist. Quite simply, Catholic theology distorts, misrepresents, or directly contradicts the teachings and tenants of Christianity, or at best, teachings things that aren't taught in Christianity. This isn't to say that there is "No True Scotsman". I'm just saying that some guy who has never set foot in Scotland isn't a true Scotsman.

As for sperm, neither the Parable of the Sower, nor Genesis 38 mentions sperm, nor does it have anything to do with ejaculate in any form or fashion. You can read it that way, if you want. You can even read Genesis 38 as a blueprint for the Eiffel tower. Doesn't make you right. And don't tell me there is no right or wrong way to read the Bible, and that it is all interpretation. It quite clearly says what it says.

Post by gamerunknown

As does Matthew 5:28.

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, God having become human and the saviour of humanity.

How would you define Christianity to exclude Catholicism? Which tenets of Catholicism do you disagree with and which contradict Christ's actual message in the Gospels? The principle of non-violence from Matthew 5:39? The only one I can think of is Matthew 6:6 and that's held in common with every sect of Christianity.

Post by MyTie

Post by gamerunknown

Oh, MyTie, I remember reading something like "abortion has become a feminist issue, it makes it hard to be sympathetic to other issues". I'm not sure if that's an accurate description of your opinion? Just looking back at the News Articles thread, you're disappointed when people conflate Limbaugh's position with that of all right-wing Christians, I'm sure there are some feminist principles that don't deserve to be associated with "free abortion for all".

Post by MyTie

Post by gamerunknown

Post by ElhonnaDS

I finally got around to reading the argument Pezz linked.

This quote stood out in particular:

It's rather a shocking idea that anyone's rights should fade away and disappear as it gets harder and harder to accord them to him.

Well, the right to life is held as a standard in the US, but the right to sustenance isn't (there are laws that the states ought to have facilities to provide food, but I don't think the right to eat is considered a legal right). So it's not held as a violation of the right to life if someone starves to death in the US as far as I'm aware, which is unfortunate.

Per Wiki Answers the number of people who starve to death in the USA is statistically insignificant. That means that, while an isolated case may exist here and there because of other circumstance (complete ignorance of government programs, mental illness, diminished capacity to leave their home or contact others, or deliberate incarceration by another) that lead a person to starve, the programs that exist are adequate to the task of providing food for those who can't afford it.

Post by gamerunknown

Per Wiki Answers the number of people who starve to death in the USA is statistically insignificant. That means that, while an isolated case may exist here and there because of other circumstance (complete ignorance of government programs, mental illness, diminished capacity to leave their home or contact others, or deliberate incarceration by another) that lead a person to starve, the programs that exist are adequate to the task of providing food for those who can't afford it.

Well, I agree that public provisions are made in attempting to guarantee the precepts of the Declaration of Independence. Starvation was probably a poor example, perhaps (in the interest of bipartisanship) cases like Terry Schiavo or those that cannot afford medical insurance are better examples.

Post by ElhonnaDS

The medical situation is screwed up, because the costs have risen far above where they should have been because of insurance. The invention of medical insurance, and the subsequent price gouging by the medical industry as a result, has been what's led to medical costs that were allowed to escalate far above what they would have if they had to keep their pricing near what the average person could pay. The best solution would have been to never have had medical insurance to begin with. However, now that the industry has evolved around it, it's a harder problem to fix.

What I do find interesting is that every time I see a discussion about what people have a right to have (in terms of sustenance, housing, belongings, etc.), it's never paired with any kind of declaration of what kinds of responsibility they have to help provide it for themselves, or to help provide something else to the people who do provide it for them, so that everyone helps everyone else. Everything that people have has to be produced either by them or by someone else. If everyone has a right to food, but not everyone has the responsibility to contribute to the means of production of food, or to another means of production that will benefit those who do produce the food, then how do we ensure that enough food is produced? If everyone has the right to a home, medical care, food, education, etc., does that mean that they have the right to expect another person to produce more than their personal share of what's needed but have no responsibility to produce anything themselves?

I am sympathetic to people who legitimately want to provide for their families and themselves, and due to the depressed economy, have had issues finding gainful employment. I am not sympathetic to people who feel entitled to XYZ regardless of the amount of work they do, because everything they are asking for is work done by someone else. If you're not willing to work yourself, then why should you have a right to have someone else work for you? Where is the balance between what someone "deserves" and what someone "earns," and how do you make people pull their fair share of production without some kind of incentive (i.e.- the results of that production)?

I am not someone who doesn't think anyone should have any government support ever. I think as a society, we need to have enough humanity to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves. However, we also need to have the character to expect that people who refuse to provide for themselves will need to feel the consequences of their actions (or lack of action) or they will never contribute to society.

Public school operates admirably in this respect. Public school offers, for free, all of the basic educational foundations someone would need to go on to the workforce, or to higher education. It's 12-13 years of studies in a broad range of categories- math, science, grammar & spelling, literature, foreign language, music, art, health, etc. For children with disabilities, they offer special programs that are geared towards preparing them as well as possible based on their own needs and learning speed. And, for children who work very hard and do very well, the government will continue to pay in part or in whole for their college education. However, they require that in order to get the certification that you have attended and gained the benefit of this education, that you demonstrate that you have paid attention and done the necessary work to understand and be able to apply the information. This education is free and available to everybody, but in order to be given the degrees needed to get into college or show competency for a job, they require the student to do a fair share of the work to prepare themselves.

I think that assistance programs should do something similar. If an adult is receiving assistance from the government, then the government should be able to require that this person put in some work to attempt to get off assistance in the future or contribute to another area of production. They should require that, for people to qualify for assistance, they either be taking some kind of government-provided trade or continuing education and doing well in it, or be available as a labor pool for government projects that benefit the rest of society whose taxes are paying for that assistance, or both. If someone is unwilling to either commit to a course of action that will get them off assistance in a set period of time, or to provide something to society in return for what society is providing for them, then they should be cut off.

EDIT: And, to relate this back to the original thread, there are a lot of arguments about how people have the right not to have children they can't afford, but never paired with any stance on them having any accountability for preventing it themselves. If you can't afford a child, then you probably shouldn't be having unprotected sex. If you do, and you get pregnant, then you bear the responsibility for being in that state. I'm not talking about situations of rape, or even where birth control used properly failed (which are a very, VERY small percentage of total unwanted pregnancies). So many people talking about their own rights without wanting to commit to having any of the responsibility themselves is just sad. It's a mentality that cuts across many different issues.

Post by gamerunknown

Starting with the last sentiment of the last paragraph, I think that's where considering contraception as a public benefit overall is useful. I am familiar with the religious arguments against it, but I think that having it open for debate and referendum is the most democratic method for determining whether programs should be implemented that allow for better access to contraceptives.

I agree with government employment programs, but there have been considerable criticisms of them from the right wing (Mises for example). They also hold that welfare programs are an anathema and that unemployment is a necessary component of the capitalist form of production (agreeing in the latter respect with Marx). The alternatives proposed that I'm familiar with are parish relief, using churches as a form of wealth redistribution service, voluntarism, which I don't think has any historical precedent and is an attempt to increase dissension and finally some form of Social Darwinism.

The arguments in support of welfare tend to be on these lines. I recently read the Selfish Gene and Dawkins at the beginning uses trade unions as an example of a selfish institution and says that the working class in Britain have often been told to be less greedy in asking for benefits, since if there were no workers in Britain then there would be no citizens. He clarified at the end that he was actually referring to speeches from the Labour government at the time and that he'd voted for them as he shared their Socialist principles. That said, while expecting to be fed without contributing to the society that allows for the distribution of food may be short-sighted in some individuals, I don't think the principle of remuneration ever really comes into play. Thanks to agricultural development it requires fewer workers to produce enough sustenance for the majority of people (in fact, in industrial countries it may actually be cheaper to overconsume than to consume a balanced diet). However, the tillers of the field tend to earn far less than the director of Monsato, due to the principle of cross-breeding strains of grains that require repeat purchase. Resources are allotted unequally and may remain so even when the the production of the means of subsistence are automated (compare hand-looms and power-looms - while production of clothing was largely automated, it was hardly to the benefit of the previous hand-loom artisans).

At any rate, I wasn't arguing in support of the idea that those that cost more to society than they're capable of producing for society should be rejected by society. It does seem to be the case in any society though, the latest cancer drugs are not endorsed by the NHS nor by insurance companies unless the individual can afford them privately as far as I know. To view society in such a fashion would give credence to the idea of eugenics though: the elderly and the unwanted young tend to be unproductive which justifies getting rid of them.

Post by ElhonnaDS

I didn't say we shouldn't support people who CAN'T support themselves. I said that we shouldn't support people who WON'T support themselves. Big difference.

Post by MyTie

What I do find interesting is that every time I see a discussion about what people have a right to have (in terms of sustenance, housing, belongings, etc.), it's never paired with any kind of declaration of what kinds of responsibility they have to help provide it for themselves, or to help provide something else to the people who do provide it for them, so that everyone helps everyone else.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Even democrats knew that... long ago.

Post by Azazel

Well, JFK was a democrat, so I wouldn't be too surprised about that :P

Post by gamerunknown

I said that we shouldn't support people who WON'T support themselves.

Well, the Mises institute considers semi-productive employment (government programs) a form of supporting those that are unwilling to support themselves.

Post by ElhonnaDS

Even if it is, it's still a better and more productive way of supporting them than letting them sit at home and collect a check.

Post by Skithus

Continuing from the news stories thread.

Edit: Would I be correct in assuming given your position MyTie that you are against the criminalization of Suicide and assisted Suicides? As that would be the government ruling over a life.

I have a right to life, much like a right to speech. I cannot legally be denied those rights by government. However, does it mean that I legally MUST use my right. Am I compelled to speak? Can I be compelled to live? I think that the rights are someone that someone can choose to give up. People should be allowed to commit suicide, and gain assistance if desired. However, suicide cannot be compelled, nor can it be given if not sought for.

I see some weird "suicide while pregnant" debate coming. I'd like to bow out of that before it starts.

No i was mostly checking to see if you grasped the full scope of what a constitutional amendment to the Right and protection of life would actually do.

Like you, I am in agreement that constitutional rights are something a citizen should be allowed to willingly forfeit.

However

An interesting thought, Children are not really protected by the constitution. Their parents can revoke their free speech, they can not own a gun, all their property is under the ownership of their parents.

So if parents are allowed to govern the rights of children, and the right of life allows you to assist with or participate in your own suicide. Then parents could revoke their child's right to life, thereby abortion.. up to the age of ~18

Post by gamerunknown

Well, the Constitution establishes the right of Congress to make law and Congress has determined that neglect and murder are criminal. The Constitution alone has been notoriously lax in protecting rights, including women's rights and minority rights. If the Constitution alone were the law of the land, then I'm sure children would petition the Supreme Court for their right to bear arms (though they could successfully argue that the founding fathers didn't intend for children to have the right to bear arms - no such argument could be made for blacks and women due to the 14th and 19th amendment).

Post by gamerunknown

Uhn, inconsistency.

Paraphrasing:

"Abortion is a simple medical procedure with no long term consequences"
"Ok, how about if the father desires that their partner perform one, she's required to, since it's a simple medical procedure that could save him a lot of money."
"Oh my God, what a horrible violation of the sanctity of life!"

Post by 204878

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Abortion Debate

Post Reply