Pro Life, Pro Choice, Pro Discussion
Pro Life, Pro Choice, Pro Discussion
Let me start this out by saying that I am pro-choice, but I believe there are merits to the pro-life movement that I support. This entry is an attempt to discuss the merits of it, and the inherent parts of the pro-life movement that make communication near impossible.
Let me start out by defining my own stance on the issue:
- I strongly support the use of contraceptives as a method to limit the expansion of disease and unintentional pregnancy.
- I strongly support stem cell research.
- I support the use of abortion in close proximity to the fertilization date, but feel that there needs to be further discussion on a cut-off point for this.
I’m going to address these three issues in order with the bulk of my time spent on the third.
Contraceptives:
The Vatican, in particular, strongly opposes the use of contraceptives. Let me just state that this is a hideous stance. This has nothing to do with life; this has to do with sex and should not even be associated with the pro-life movement in anyway. It clouds the issues that are worth discussion. Use of contraceptives should be nothing short of the choice of the person based on their own situation. I would go as far to say that this anti-contraceptive stance is damaging to the followers of a faith and further encourages the spread of disease. These Christian organizations / sects that believe that contraception is bad and that abstinence is the only solution should really start to look at history and realize that their promotion of abstinence has failed miserably. It is time to look past egos and realize that people are going to have sex and they need to be aware of the risks associated with that.
Stem Cell Research:
This is nothing more than an ignorant stance. I don’t mean ignorant in a demeaning way, so don’t jump on me about being offensive. I have seen no reason to believe that the anti-stem cell following is at all educated on the topic they are opposing. This argument simply has no place in the pro-life versus pro-choice argument and I see it as a disgusting pull on people’s emotions to associate the two.
The association essentially gains fervor due to scientists getting consent from parents who had decided on abortion to pull stem cells from the aborted fetuses. This is a false connection. The child is already being aborted. Opposing the abortion I can appreciate, associating the abortion with scientists getting use out of the aborted fetus is simply not thinking it through. The abortion is already happening. It’s not like scientists are going around asking for people to have abortions so that they can strip stem cells out.
It is important to note that the embryos used to get stem cells would go to waste if not used for this research. They would not ever have a chance at life. This is an important distinction. Debate stem cells for whatever reasons you see fit, but keep them out of the pro-life arguments. It removes credibility from the argument and clouds the overall debate.
Abortion:
I do not support abortion to any degree. I do believe in the right of an unborn life, but I am not set on what exactly I classify as an unborn life. Is that unborn life at the moment it is self-sufficient? Is it at the moment of conception? What I do know for certain is that I am not comfortable with the idea of aborting an unborn life that has a chance at survival. This is where I think there is the greatest amount of discomfort for people, and a willingness to discuss the topic.
No one defends the unfertilized egg, or the unused sperm. Countless eggs and sperm go to waste every day without anyone batting an eye. Each sperm and each egg I could argue are the essential components for life, are potentially life, and should therefore be used to produce life. Why don’t they? They don’t because it would be silly to argue that every sperm should be sacred despite the wonderful song produced by Monty Python.
If the sperm and the egg individually are not worth protection, why does joining them instantly make them worth saving? For the average pro-life person I would hope that it does not. The argument over at what point it should be classified as a life, however, now you have a valid argument that is worth discussing.
Likely the major reason why we can’t get down to a reasonable discussion about abortion is due to religious groups. Sorry to peg you guys, and I know this seemed like a post avoiding religion, but it’s hard to avoid religion when talking about pro-life. Religious organizations weight in heavily on this due to their concept of a soul. Some people believe that the soul enters the body right at conception and it is the soul itself that needs to be protected. But if this is true, then I think an argument can easily be made that there is actually a good reason NOT to protect that soul. I have expanded on this line of thinking previously in my entry: Is Abortion / Baby Killing Holy?
Now, for fun, I thought I would find a random pro-life article and discuss its points:
Today’s candidate is “10 Reasons why Abortion Is Evil” which was an article on the website for The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property which is a “born of a group of Catholic Americans concerned about the multiple crises shaking every aspect of American life.”
Pro-family Americans must vigorously oppose abortion. Our future society depends on the strength of the family. If abortion continues destroying it and morality is not boldly defended, America will eventually disintegrate as a nation.
This is quite often the kind of rhetoric that is used by the pro-life movement. This type of approach to a subject is simply not helpful. There is nothing to back up any of these statements. It is purely an emotional response to an issue and an attempt to appeal to other people’s emotions rather than providing a factual outlook on the situation. Regardless of this, I want to address their reasons why in a reasonable manner.
Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, over 42 million unborn children have been killed, more than the entire population of Spain. Today abortion kills 1 baby every 20 seconds. That means by the time you finish reading this article, more than 30 innocent lives will be lost. God’s plan for them will be mercilessly ruined.
The statistics that I keep reading on a large number of sources lists the abortion rate at about 1.5 million per year in the United States. Interestingly, the abortion rate prior to legalized abortion was estimated at about 1 million per year in the United States. Considering population growth and this being suddenly a legal and accessible procedure I would have thought that the numbers would have increased far more dramatically. Considering the number of people that are pro-choice in the United States today, this should be a clear demonstration that is not about making “killing babies” but rather about making the procedures safer and accessible.
God’s plan for them was clearly for them to be aborted. Since this is a Catholic website I am right to assume that the Catholic god is an omnipotent and omniscient god that knew that baby would be aborted long before it was aborted. It should also be noted that the future of that baby would be in your Heaven, or at least purgatory. If a person in heaven were to spend a million years post-death in Heaven, then the 80 years they might spend on earth is of such insignificance that this shouldn’t even matter. This is not an issue about God. God is just being invoked for emotional purposes but it has not been thought through. Note again: Is Abortion / Baby Killing Holy?
Okay, on to the reasons…
1. Abortion Offends GodAbortion is never a mere personal choice but a grave offense against God and His creation. The anti-abortion struggle has always been a religious battle and foremost in its ranks have been Catholics across the country. This is because Church teaching on abortion is clear and unequivocal: Abortion is murder. There are no exceptions allowed, no compromises possible.
I agree that abortion is never a “mere personal choice” and I don’t think that is how people view it for the most part. Reducing it to “mere personal choice” is really an insult to the people that do have to make such a decision. And you may define abortion as murder, but I think the definition of what you are aborting should really be the subject that we are discussing. If you are taking a stance on it being contraception is the point of the start of life, then great. Why does this have to be resorted to religious fundamentalism? It prevents people from joining your cause, and plugs the ears of intelligent people that don’t want to hear more religious babble and rhetoric that does not add to constructive conversation.
2. The Unnoticed WarThe continuing war on terror has lead to a renewed national consciousness of the high price of war, and, for many, a heightened desire for peace. Yet, despite all this concern, the most horrible war of all has gone all but unnoticed. This is a war going on within our own borders, and it has claimed 42 million American lives in the last 31 years.
This scourge is as horrible as anything terrorists can fathom, because it strikes at the very core of humanity and our country: the family. By destroying the most basic human bond of all—that between mother and child—abortion dissolves the precious glue that binds our nation together.
While mother and child are the first victims, there is not a single element of society that is not affected by abortion. Mother, child, father, husband, aunt, uncle, friend, sibling and grandparent alike suffer the scars of the abortionist’s scalpel. Peace abroad is meaningless without peace at home.
The number 42 million is highly inaccurate. Just because there were 42 million abortions that in no way equates to 42 million successful people on the planet. It is fair to estimate that a very large percentage of these would have never survived natural conditions.
Women were mutilating themselves and dying as a result of feeling the need to get these illegal abortions done. That has number has come down significantly. The accessibility of proper health treatments is essential for any country so that people aren’t causing unnecessary harm to themselves.
The other paragraphs just degenerate into more drivel unfortunately. None of this addresses the actual topic of abortion itself; it just tosses big nasty words at it with the backing of religious faith. This is the same faith that condones and influences the death of countless people in Africa due its aggressive stance against contraceptives.
There are many elements to society that have nothing to do with family. If family was so important to the core of society we would not see the divorce rate at what it is. There are also many situations where there is not the family connections and may play a roll into the decision to go down such a path.
3. Life starts at the moment of conceptionThis is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife’s egg and a husband’s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence – which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen.
The problem with this is that you’ve gone and defined “respectable” by your own standards. The definition of when life starts is what this discussion should be. I accept the argument that it is the moment of conception as a reasonable argument when talking about the combining of the two sets of chromosomes. That said, I don’t think this action alone is justification of life in itself. I’m not sure what exactly you mean by essence, but if it’s “soul” then we can go back to my question about it being holy to abort.
It should also be noted that in the range of two-thirds of all conceptions are aborted by nature spontaneously. There is clearly a lot of room for discussion on this point if we can get the religion out of the conversation.
4. Mankind must protect life whenever possibleThe first and foremost instinct of humans is preservation of life. This begins with self-preservation, and extends to all humanity through domestic bonds and realization of a like nature. "Pregnancy termination" stops the beating heart of a growing human being and is in direct contradiction to this most basic premise of human nature. It forsakes natural law, and has left America as a country unable to repopulate itself without the aid of mass immigration.
Let us presume that it is impossible to stop abortions altogether. We can base this on the fact that abortions were happening all over the world prior to their legalization. The reduction in abortions by making abortions illegal would be approximated at 500k per year. The combined legal/illegal immigration rate into the US is 5 times higher than this. And that is without getting into the possibility for successful life that many of these children will have on top of potentially destroying the lives of the mother and father at a plausibly too early age.
There is no doubt that stopping legal abortions in the United States would not solve the requirement to import talented individuals from other countries.
As for protecting life, it is definition of life that we need to work on.
5. Abortion is an unsafe procedureCompared with other medical procedures, the abortion industry is largely unregulated. Although there are no exact statistics for the number of women who die from botched procedures, LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions since 1973.2 Furthermore, according to the
National Cancer Institute, an induced abortion raises a woman's chance of getting cancer before age 45, by 50%. If the abortion is performed after age 30, it increases 110%; if before age 18, it goes up 150%.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports: "28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters."
This is justification for getting the process fixed, not opposing abortion.
Besides this, if your number is even close to accurate (347) then this is probably one of the safest procedures around with a fatality rate of less than 0.0009%. I can’t imagine how many things have a higher fatality rate than this.
As for the cancer issues, I won’t question your statistics and I haven’t investigated it. But it begs the question of what is the number that’s being increased? Is it a .01% chance prior to those factors? Clarification of this sort of data would seem important if these statistics were to have any meaning.
6. Embryonic stem-cell and human cloning research: a biogenetic Tower of BabelIn a cynical but logical progression, the culture of death is now bent on engendering human life so as to destroy it. Its new frontier is embryonic stem-cell and human cloning research. In the name of science and health, human life is destroyed at its very inception and "limited" cloning is used to produce usable cells that can be manipulated and harvested to aid the living. In short, the remaining ethical barriers that preserve human dignity and God's rights in Creation are steadily coming down. The biotech revolution has as its avowed goal not just curing disease but the construction of a "brave new world" of genetic engineering, changing the very makeup and design of man himself. We cannot permit the completion of this challenge to God, a new Tower of Babel, which will be like another Pandora's box, unleashing untold ethical and moral havoc on our nation.
This is a great example of blatant ignorance and lack of information regarding stem cells. If your God did not want these things to be investigated, surely he could intervene himself. I reject your idea that it is unethical to manipulate things that that have no chance at life, so what are the other moral and ethical havoc that would come down?
This type of meaningless uneducated babble gets tagged into the anti-abortion campaign while at the same time have nothing to do with it. I greatly recommend people forget the stem cell research thing until they are willing to invest time into learning exactly what it is.
7. Breaking the abortion cycleAbortion is evil because it created a horrific abortion cycle that perpetuates this sin. The abortion mentality destroys the family by making it more difficult for new Americans who survive beyond the womb to find the family welded together by the indissoluble bond of marriage solely between a man and a woman. Children need families that will nurture them, guard their innocence and develop their personalities. In particular, all children must find within their homes the Faith that enables them to know, love and serve God in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next. As long as the traditional family remains in crisis, we will never sever the power lines that supply the abortion mills. As long as the Faith remains dead in souls, we will never wipe out the moral rot of sexual immorality, which is the contaminated soil where the abortion movement grows and flourishes.
This is another fine example of avoiding the actual conversation. This excludes people of various faiths, and the fact that divorce rates are as high in Catholicism as they are with any other religion or non-religion. This kind of religious sentiment is an insult to a secular nation and country. It is a shame that people aren’t able to act on their politics without invoking their faith in such a venomous manner. This is the kind of quote that makes people look at these groups are religious nutters and forces them to just ignore their arguments. You’d do a lot better for the anti-abortion cause by removing this kind of tripe from the argument since this is not a debate over religion.
8. Roe v. Wade: 31 Years of LiesThe 31st anniversary of the Supreme Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion-on-demand calls to mind the biggest pack of lies ever set in motion - lies that have cost the lives of more than 42 million innocent babies cruelly torn from their mothers' wombs. How can such slaughter, numerically on par with Hitler's Germany or Stalin’s Russia, be tolerated by the present United States of America, a republic purportedly based on moral values and human rights?
Those numbers can be credited to abortion, sure, but not the legalization of it. And that was supposed to be the topic. As for the 42 million innocent babies, I wouldn’t be surprised if I could track down that many in the name of Christianity without much of a problem yet Christianity still exists today defending their moral code? Perhaps a mirror is required here. I agree with the arguments against abortion to a degree, but this type of discourse is what prevents me from ever picking a time-after-conception and backing it.
9. Addressing an abortionist
I’m going to ignore this section since it is purely an appeal to emotion and has nothing to do with the original question.
10. The dangerous slippery slope
No reasons given here, just more appeal to emotion.
There are a lot of misconceptions about abortion out there. I think it would be fabulous if the conversation could be focused on abortion itself where I think there is some ground to push-down the time for abortion so that people can’t have abortions too late in their pregnancy. The problem is that this discussion isn’t happening in a lot of places due to the constant bickering over the extremes. The people who are far-gone on the pro-life side are manipulating the facts and the information to suit their religious beliefs and link together all kinds of things that it doesn’t understand due to fear. The push their God aside and claim to be doing his work while displaying no confidence in him to prevent things from happening if they were not meant to be.
I hope that, in time, more places will have the discussion and create restrictions for how long you can abort up to with exception to situations where the mother’s life is in danger. I know in British Columbia there are such regulations, though I think there’s still some room for movement on that front as well.
The key here is that the discussion becomes focused on the specific issues rather than this holy war against all of them at once. Hopefully the rhetoric about the pro-choice movement being pro-abortion or anti-family goes away and people can accept that perhaps there is just more than 1 way to look at a situation. And hopefully they can also realize that God does not need to be invoked in a discussion.
Other reading material:
Misconceptions About Abortion (Pro Choice Action Network)
So...religion is harmless, huh? (Kellym78’s Blog)
Myths and Misconceptions about Stem Cell Research (ScienceIssues.net)
Abortions by Marital Status - Canada (PDF – Statistics Canada)
Teens & Abortion Rates - Canada (PDF – Statistics Canada)
The Visible Embryo (visembryo.com)
Is Abortion / Baby Killing Holy? (Mr. Atheist’s Blog)
- Tarpan's blog
- Login to post comments
I didn't get much of a
I didn't get much of a chance to read your entire post, but will get to it later tonight. I see you have put a lot of thought into this. I am pro-choice too, but I still find abortion to be somewhat wrong. I don't think I would ever personally recommend an abortion for convenience, but sometimes there is little other option.
The god squad is notoriously against abortion but usually because they believe it will help their standing when their judgement comes. I don't think many christians would ever adopt a child that wasn't wanted. I haven't seen any recent surveys, but I bet atheists per capita adopt more often than christians. I just think that there can be programs implemented through church organizations that would cut down on the number of abortions. If christians, muslims or whatever offered to pay for the delivery and adoption cost the number of abortions would probably decrease.
I don't think most pro-choice advocates like seeing the number of abortions we have nowadays. The common belief is that pro-choice people sit around a large table drinking blood from the skulls of the unborn. If someone has a serious problem with abortion I challenge them to adopt otherwise STFU. There are plenty of unwanted children in the world that could use a good home. The only problem is the religious indoctrination that they would be subject to. I will throw out a fundy phrase here, "What would Jesus do?" Would jesus blow up/picket abortion clinics or adopt and provide a positive role-model? This is just another wedge issue in the USA to keep us divided. There are answers out there if we would stop relying on big daddy government to do everything.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Cali_Athiest2 wrote: If
I never think about shit like this...(I'm Canadian)...
Could you elaborate more on this? Is this a moderatly large reason why people get abortions? It didn't even cross my mind while writing this that the cost of an abortion versus a delivery might play a roll in it.
That would make me even more furious that Americans haven't fixed their health care situation yet.
"Fuck communism, we'd rather kill babies we want?"
Sorry, two extremist thoughts put together there and it sounded lunatic yet matched.
My point was that here in
My point was that here in America we do have a large number of aborted babies. I realize this is a problem not because I view a fetus as a viable life but because we should value this one and only life we have.
Actually,it's true, most abortions are performed here because of that very reason. Most women that get them cannot, according to surveys, afford another mouth to feed. They can either see a decline in the quality of life for their existing children or abort. This is a shame in the modern world. I believe that someone who is pro-life should adopt an unwanted child if they truly believe in the sanctity of life. However, it is much easier to condemn someone else instead of putting their money where their mouths are. If christians organized themselves there could be programs designed to seek out and adopt unwanted children. I realize that many abortions are for other reasons, but from the stats I have read most are for some other reason than rape/incest or danger to the mother.
Another problem is we have groups that want to end free birth control here too. I am originally from Illinois, so I follow a lot that goes on politically back that way still. Well, in Missouri there was a bill to do away with free birth control available in clinics. I think the law passed. One of the problems, as I see it, is the influence of religious groups in determining law.
I hope I was able to answer your question. I have some questions about the system you have in Canada. Most of what I have read seems to indicate that the health care system in Canada has some problems, but for the most part much better than what we have to deal with. On another note I just want to say that you rock. I have read many of your posts and you are spot on.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Yeah. I got some hard
Yeah. I got some hard numbers from someone on christianforums as well which was handy. And I drew some standard far right religious hatred which was fun. I get far better responses there than i do here for all my posts...but my posts are targeted at them so that's understandable =P
I appreciate the comments. It's nice to know that someone here read them =)
As for what goes on here...ask away. It's not a perfect system, but I think a lot of the faults about it are exaggerated in the US to generate fear of socialized health care. I'd be more than happy to provide any answers / opinions on the topic I can.
I grow weary of the phrase
I grow weary of the phrase 'pro-life' as it paints the opposite minded people as 'anti-life' and I am not 'anti-life'.
Neither does the terminology of 'pro-abortion' fit that mindset opposed to 'anti-abortion'.
It is the incessant demonizing of both sides that will forever negate the possibility of ANY happy medium. The labels are misleading.
We're talking about FORCING someone to either gestate an unwanted pregnancy OR find an unsafe method of ending it if it 'gets too far along'. Where is the ethical stance there? What do you say to the woman if she gets too far beyond the arbitrary time set by the government?
"Ooops. Darn. We missed it by a week if we use this method of dating the conception, but we still have 5 days if we use this method."
WTF?
Here is the kicker. I wouldn't exist if the family weren't catholic. I wouldn't have 3 wonderful second cousins either. One would think that would cause me to be happy about anti-choice people. On the contrary, it actually infuriates me to think that mom didn't have a choice AT ANY POINT.
After the brain dies, memories no longer work. Prior to the brain's development. there are no memories. Even after the brain develops and sensory functions are available for cataloging, what use are memories of the uterus?
As far as a fetus having the possibility of sustainment, I watched 30 week 'babies' spend a day in NICU before dismissal at the same time that 41 week babies came in for weeklong stays for respiratory distress. If we're going to gamble every time on whether we can guess the sustainability of the 'life' then why can't we put all the cards into the arena of choice to preserve the rights of the primarily affected individual, the woman?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Does any body else see the
Does any body else see the huge contradiction between being "pro-life" and "anti-contraception." I would think anyone could assume making contraception widely available would reduce the number of abortions.
I could sympathize much more with the pro-life position in cases were sexual education and contraception was made readily available. It would seem to me that the ultimate defense of the 'sanctity of human life' would be not allowing that life only to be created so haphazardly.
shelleymtjoy wrote:Does any
That is my big problem too. I also want to change the wording of pro-life as well. Because, as pointed out earlier, it sounds like the opposing viewpoint is pro-death. The verbage is important in that it seems to give one group the illusion of a higher moral position. Besides, I can't think of any other example where two different words are used to describe another person's views. I like the term anti-choice, but that would make the religious right seem kinda tyrannical. Oh wait.......
I'm not sure that most theists have a problem with contraception other than the catholic church, but this view is irrational. If god exists and creates life, it must get frustrated by birth control. I mean all-powerful god can't beat the pill? If there is some master plan how can man throw a monkey wrench into it?
I won't even bother to talk about sex-ed and today's abstinence only programs.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
It's interesting to note
It's interesting to note that Canada, I am fairly sure, has a fair bit higher % of our population that is aligned with the Roman Catholic church. Despite this, sexual education is a strong part of our public school system.
Promoting abstinence as the only choice is simply destructive to and ignorant. There is a very long history of failure by camps that promote abstinence only and oppose sex-ed.
Pro-life is also a
Pro-life is also a misleading term IMO because it doesn't consider the quality of that life. I would think a "pro-life" viewpoint, technically speaking, would be in favor of stem cell research in that it ha such potential to increase the quality of the lives already here rather than just being a term that we connect with 'quantity' of life.
hell yes, madame
i have to agree wholeheartedly with 'shelleymtjoy's statement here, as it touches an actual contradiction in the catholic church. they are violently pro-new-life, and violently anti-old-life. Catholics love war, love fighting, love capital punishment.
but hey, a culture that in love with death has to promote procreation, right? otherwise they'd run out of shit to kill.
to touch on one of the many nonsense points contained herein (not including the ones regarding socialist-coddling bullshit(YOU DON'T GET WHAT YOU DON'T EARN!) , "pro-life" IS equatable with "anti-contraception" because the belief is NOT that one should refrain from aborting a pregnancy, but that one should NEVER have sexual intercourse with the intent of excluding pregnancy from the realm of possibility. in other words, Catholic doctrine says that there is a defined purpose for sexual intercourse, and that purpose is to produce a new 'life', or replicant of the two bodies involved. any sexual intercourse that is replete in that purpose is 'abonimable' (a popular word in olden days to rally people against things).
SO, the use of contraception prevents the sperm, which exist solely to fertilize an egg, and may never be used in jest, from fertilising said egg, (which is only to be used as an agent of fertilization by spermatazoa), and thwarts the Catholic God's intended use of human genital organs and their respective ammunition.
seriously, i've seen some dumb kid cry on the Myspace Social Networking Conglomerate that he regretted killing a baby by spilling his jizz anywhere other than his partner's canal. yeah, that's right. we're all adults, it's called jizz.
jism if you wanna be fancy. ye-ah.
Fear is the mindkiller.
Mr. Atheist
Same here, so that one stunned me. But the original quote takes a re-reading. If people were opposed to abortion, but were forced to bear the costs incurred by delivery and adoption, don't you think they'd give up and just accept that abortions will take place as a lower-cost alternative? (Thus, increasing the number of abortions?)
There you go calling yourself an extremist again.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
HisWillness wrote:Mr.
No, I was forming what 2 extremists quotes would look like...I wouldn't say that as I don't link socialized health care with communism nor abortion with murder.
Juh?
of course it's off topic, but i'm really curious about this whole "socialized healthcare doesn't equal communism" thing. i'd really like to hear how a person justifiably receives something for doing nothing.
Fear is the mindkiller.
DrFear wrote:of course it's
It's not about doing nothing, it's about taking care of people and providing good health to everyone. If people are healthy, they are productive. If they aren't indebted by health costs then they can work and are not stricken down further into poverty.
It's not about receiving something for doing nothing, it's just not looked at as something that should be questioned. Having a health care system that is focused on the health of people rather than on making a buck is going to save more lives and keep more people healthy.
Socialized health care also keeps the costs down, ensures regulations and standards are met. It's makes sure that people don't need to save their entire lives for the procedure they don't know they are going to need.
What it really comes down to though is a different way of looking at your country. I believe there are more important things than money. One of those things is health. I would much rather a child go to a hospital and receive care for a bad case of the flu rather than being turned away because their mother's insurance wasn't good at that hospital. Not everyone is capable of providing for themselves and their children, particularly when insurance companies bend you over a table. You can either say "Fuck um" or you can help them.
There's a reason why the US is so low on just about every 'quality of life' chart. The lack of social responsibility is likely one of the biggest reasons.
Here is my humble
Here is my humble opinion.
If you don't like Pro Choice, Pro Life, etc... I use the term Planned Parenting. I think that having a baby as a consequence or a punishment is just wrong. Bringing in another life into this world that is dependent upon you is something to be cherrished and not taken lightly. This is another human being that you are responsible for. A kid's upbringing greatly shapes them, as to who and what kind of a person they will be. Just because your reproductive organs work doesn't mean you're parenting material. Some people should never of been parents yet they had kids anyway, (because they didn't think it right to have an abortion) and they are neglected, abused, or in worse cases... dumping live babies in the trash.
If using contraceptives is being responsible, and it fails and you get knocked up.. how does that = I should have baby? It's obviously not wanted, so you should continue to do the responsible thing and avoid an unwanted child if the contraceptive method failed. I believe in quality of life first. If you have no means to support yourself much less a child you have no reason to be having a child. What makes me sick is people that lead messed up lives and look at having a child as an opportunity to get on welfare.
Since miscarriage is a perfectly natural thing that happens early in many pregnancies, in that same time frame (1st trimester) she should be able to make her choice with out feeling like she's terminating a human life. Then naturally there are the exceptions, rapes, medical issues for the mom or child, that should justify abortions also. Then there are also drug users that should not be having kids when they are managing to abuse the kid before it's even born. People who have had 13 (or numerous amounts) abortions... obviously failed at something as simple as using contraception and should get fixed.
I agree there should be a time limit on the abortions, with the exception continuing pregnancy jeopardizes the moms life. I've heard of abortions where the doctors literally kill the child and then deliver/remove it. That is past the point of no return. I feel that saying a woman shouldn't have the right to control her life by avoiding an unplanned pregnancy is to severely strip away her value of life saying the unborn child is more important than her. (Makes me want to say I was here first Biatch!) We are not a struggling species in terms of population we do not need to procreate to survive as a species. Which is where our primal instincts come from to preserve life.
So since we are having abortions in this day and age what about stem cell research? I have a friend in Mexico that has a heart that was defective from/since birth, parts of it keep dying because he keeps having heart attacks. He was down to a ridiculously small percentage of his heart left functioning. After having a double by pass and participating in an experimental implants of stem cells in his heart to see if it can repair the damage, which was a year ago. He has had confirmation those wonderful stem cells are working, his heart is repairing, and he's starting to finally lead a normal life where he doesn't damn near drop dead once a month. Stem cell research is science, science has brought us to where we are today and why would we hesitate advancing that when we can greatly increase quality of life and cure diseases.
Ok there is my view on it, I was kind of reluctant to actually post it, I probably come off pretty abrasive on this topic, but I've seen some pretty sad situations that could have been more humane to just flat out prevented it.
I don't think that you come
I don't think that you come off as abrasive at all. It was a great post.
One thing I wanted to comment on was the stem cell procedure you note. That type of stem cell research actually isn't opposed. They have not started using embryonic stem cells for actual procedures (even experimental) as of yet and so far I don't believe there are any things that it is known to cure. It's the potential of them.
Really this gets into another problem with lumping stem cell research into the pro-life category is that there are stem cells we can get from adults and then there are embryonic stem cells which are bound to get lumped together.
Outside of that, not much I can say since I think we agree =)
Oddly enough I have always
Oddly enough I have always held the point that I am Pro-Life for myself, but Pro-Choice on abortion. This of course pisses off Pro-Lifer's. I don't believe in abortion. As a young man, I made a mistake with a girlfriend and ended up in the clinic. It was a decision I regret. Yet, no matter how much I regret my decision, I am not conceited, or vain enough to make this choice for other people. Choice is making your own decision, and there is not right or wrong, just personal opinions.If I kill someone with a gun for breaking into my house and threaten my family, does that make me Pro-Death?Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.
shelleymtjoy wrote:Does any
I agree with this wholeheartedly. If you want to lower the abortion rate, teach REAL sex education, not this abstinence only bullshit our president has been pushing. Stop making contraceptives so taboo and evil. Let people learn how to protect themselves and they would be less abortions.
I can't imagine ever having to make a decision like abortion but I still think that I deserve the right to choose. I realize it's far more complicated than that but I really don't want children. This world has enough people in it - I don't need to add to the problem. Therefore, I practice safe sex so I don't get pregnant.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I've said this before in
I've said this before in other threads but I'll say it again...
Here (in VA) government funded medical assistance will not pay for birth control. I know two people IRL that became pregnant when they had no desire to have a kid because they simply could not afford birth control.
Of course, this same medical assistance covered all their maternity costs and WIC provided food during the pregnancy, for the first year afterwards, and formula. While I'm all for helping a pregnant woman get the proper nutrition for her growing fetus these are people that had no desire to get pregnant and would have used birth control if they could have afforded roughly $30/month for it.
As far as adoption goes... I've heard too many "pro-lifers" claim the adopting family pays for a women's medical care and pregnancy-related expenses -- even housing and food -- as if adoption is a blank check for the birth mother that she'd be an idiot to turn down. Adoption agencies do not roll this cost into the cost of adoption for US born babies. They encourage birth mothers to use their own private insurance. If that isn't possible they apply for medicaid an behalf of these women. Also, there are legal limits to how much financial assistance (rent, maternity clothes, food, etc) that an adopting family can give the birth mother.
In Canada we don't have free
In Canada we don't have free birth control.
It is covered for people who are covered by the extended medical (which is given to people below an income level) but the base medical does not (at least in BC) cover the cost of birth control without extended medical.
That said, most people (if not all teens) have access to birth control if they go ask for it.
Education is the most important thing of all if you ask me.
There are some fascinating statistics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_incidence_of_teenage_pregnancy
The US is way out of wack with the rest of modernized countries.
Mr. Atheist wrote:Education
On of the individuals I was mentioning (that couldn't afford to continue her $30/month Rx for the pill) actually tried several old wife's tales about birth control. Including (I kid you not) douching with coke-a-cola.
I wish I would have known about this when it was happening so I could have said something but (surprise, surprise) she became pregnant the first month. It amazes and saddens me that this still happens with all the resources we have in this country.
shelleymtjoy wrote:On of the
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
holy shit, that is the funniest thing I've read in a loong as time....
...
bwahahahahhaa
....
...
bah ahhahahaha
shelleymtjoy wrote:Including
Champagne! It's champagne you do that with. That's why it didn't work!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
HisWillness
I wonder how many ER visits there are due to half-empty bottles getting 'stuck'. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I'll apologize in advance
I'll apologize in advance for derailing Mr. Atheist's blog because I really can't resist sharing this.
Back in December '05 I ended up in the ER after hours of pain and one passed kidney stone. It hurt like you would not believe. However, when I arrived at the ER I forgot about the pain and proceeded to laugh my ass off for the next few hours because the guy in the room next to me had a glass coke bottle stuck up his rear.
According to the doctor on that night - once you pass the sphincter, the ass is just one giant vacuum.
shelleymtjoy wrote:I'll
See that's funny...but coke douche gets funnier the more i think about it lol.
back to REALITY
i agree that sex ed in the US is comical, to say the very least, and there are major issues in the healthcare system, but i will tell you that simply giving out health care to everyone is a totalitarian folly that i fucking god damn well hope doesn't happen in this particular country.l i like to think there's a rational base going on, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
your entire pro-communism argument seems to stem from the fact that lazy, worthless, layabout people ENJOY receiving free healthcare. and i guess you're right. i can't see how i wouldn't favor that situation, how about you?? you state that:
"It's not about doing nothing, it's about taking care of people and providing good health to everyone. If people are healthy, they are productive."
so if weak, sick humans are built up and provided for, they can perform just as well as viable, healthy humans???????????????????? fucking hell, i could sit here and type question marks all night.
so if an un-employable human gets sick, and is entitled to be cured by law, he/she/it will suddenly become an employable human????
"Socialized health care also keeps the costs down, ensures regulations and standards are met. It's makes sure that people don't need to save their entire lives for the procedure they don't know they are going to need."
for cripes' sake, if by this day and age, you don't know that you are going to need medical attention at some point before you die, you've got to be a completely deluded asshole. for example, i pay, PERSONALLY, 150 dollars per month for health insurance(which is next to nothing). over the course of a year, that's 18,000 dollars i've paid in. assuming i live to the modest age of 35, i will have 124,000 dollars paid in to the health insurance company.
for someone who is richer than me, they can have a much richer sum paid in advance, for someone poorer, they have whatever they have paid in. Regarless, the insurance companies' assessment of what is "enough" does not always jibe with what has been paid in, and this is the injustice of the American healthcare system. not the rates, not the uninsured. the payouts and the premiums. that is the key. the problem lies with the companies, not the consumers.
and really, at this point in human evolution, nobody that's worth anything is lost via "improper healthcare". eat duck balls.
Fear is the mindkiller.
Too many zeroes/comma in the
Too many zeroes/comma in the wrong place, Fear. lol. $1,800 for the year.
Lots of good people, some fellow atheists can't afford healthcare. Providing healthcare to ALL includes you as well. It isn't just for the dregs of humanity to abuse. It's an idea for everyone.
Essentially, buying insurance is nearly the same thing. You pay $1,800 this year, but only use $1,000 in medical services. Do you get that other $800 back??? Ummmm NO! That $800 goes to old granny christian's colostomy bag costs because she has the same insurance company that you do.
Congratulations, your health insurance money just went to pay to take care of theist excrement.
What is the difference?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
It's the middle-class that
It's the middle-class that gets fucked the hardest by the current system in the US.
I don't believe socialized health care has anything to do with pro-communism. Though that is pretty standard propaganda that has been spewed out in the states for quite some time. There is a reason that people who are well off buy their drugs from Canada or other countries. Your system is broken from top to bottom.
Your numbers are also off. $150 a month is about $1,800 a year, not $18,000. So that $124,000 number comes way down. Keep in mind that your insurance doesn't mean jack shit if they find a way to get around paying it (really the essence of SiCKO if you haven't seen it yet, do so). You need to likely have tens of thousands put aside in case of a major illness hitting you that they decide not to cover, or if the cure for is seen as 'experimental' or 'non-standard'. People assume they are covered, and then some insurance investigator is hired to save the company money.
As for the people that don't deserve it, I happen to think that the single-mother and her child are worth protecting. I think the sick child that doesn't have coverage is worth saving. This isn't about communism. To associate socialized health care with communism is to suggest that England, France and Canada are "communist" countries.
There are no doubt many people with your view on health care. You are welcome to it. Just another reason why the rest of the world is proudly not American.
Dr Fear might only pay
Dr Fear might only pay $1,800 a year for health insurance but I pay $1,400 a month. That's $16,800 a year - substantially up from the the $10,000 a year this specific policy cost a few years ago.
Health care is expensive regardless of if you pay out of pocket, your insurance company covers it, or the government subsidizes a program. Hell, even if you give the ER a fake name and sneak out before you're discharged, someone is going to pay for your treatment.
However I think the real question here is that of priorities. Should someone pay for the prenatal and delivery costs for a woman who only had a child because of denied coverage for her contraception? Why are my tax dollars spent on abstinence programs when all that equates to is one of my friends using a carbonated beverages as some sort of after-the-fact spermicide... what kind of priorities do we have that we can't get a few bucks together for some real education?
In the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate I would feel much, much, much more sympathy for the pro-life side if they provided some resources to limit unwanted conception. Face it, adoption isn't always an option.
darth_josh wrote:Too many
heh, that or the companies pocket.
Lets put this in perspective though...
DrFear is a capitalist who wants all those that can't afford their care to die. For this excitement he'll pay $1,800 per year. I want everyone to to receive care, and I pay $648 per year directly into my provincial medical. I only pay that amount because I am above an earning bracket where as if I wasn't working and collecting Employment Insurance, on paternity leave, out of work for any reason, or even just making below a specific amount (Maybe $30k a year?) I would not have to even pay that amount.
Additional to this money the provincial and federal government both put portions of tax collected towards health care.
What's the kicker?
Despite our 'big investment' in Canadian health care it is true that in many states the 'average' middle-class person actually pays more taxes than a Canadian. Canada also has no national deficit (we pay over $40 billion a year in interest) and in fact we have been paying down our national debt for quite some time now.
soy vay
alright, so i bombed my own math, horribly. ha ha, i don't know what i was drinking on that one.
i also failed to actually make a point with the whole insurance company spiel. the point was, that if insurance companies are the problem, (because you don't get your unused money back, yada yada), what is the sense in then making the federal government one monopolizing insurance agency that pays out to EVERYBODY, even the people who pay nothing in?
and you're gonna say "durrr, so what do you want people to do, not hire insurance companies, and just trust everybody to save for their own healthcare?"
well, that would be noble, but we all know that nobody can be trusted to save for themselves. and the main point of the insurance company is that you can get out an advance on your pay-in. what i want people to do is fix the damn insurance companies. say no to backstabbing claim denials (there are a lot of justifiable claim denials too, though), "mix-ups" (wink wink). and let's not forget that the reason people need thousands upon thousands of dollars for healthcare is because they're paying the healthcare provider's insurance against malpractice lawsuits!
we don't need to cast out the system for a new one, we just need to fix it.
socialized healthcare isn't communist? SOCIALIZED??? see, the hive mind has already spoiled your independent cognitive function....that's how they slip it to you, with the candy apple of free healthcare.
Fear is the mindkiller.
insurance
WHERE THE HELL CAN YOU GET INSURANCE FOR 150/MONTH?
MINE COSTS ME 100/week and has a 1,000/yr deductible
SO do we have socialized
SO do we have socialized police protection? The cops are commies????
Police, Fire Department,
Police, Fire Department, Libraries, Schools...
you already are communists by your own definition...
You clearly have no idea what communism means. Hive mentality? lol
I'm actually a very selfish person in nature. I see strong selfish advantages to having socialized health care despite the fact that I could afford my own insurance without a problem. You are not going to correct the obviously broken health care system in the united states as long as peoples lives are controlled by the almighty dollar.
If you haven't seen SiCKO yet, I recommend it. It's a good film. It is not targeted at the uninsured, the movie is about people who are insured.
According to your association of socialized health care equating to communism, here is a list of communist countries:
Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italty, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Uruguay, Brunei, India, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea, Sychelles, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, New Zeland.
How very interesting that
How very interesting that Venezuela was left off of that list.
Too bad their anti-choice laws are ridiculous.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
darth_josh wrote:How very
I didn't do a formal study on the matter...please feel free to add more to the list of communist countries.
Mr. Atheist wrote:darth_josh
I understand. I see your argument as well. That socialized health care is not necessarily correlated with socialism.
BUT! As a professed world socialist, I look on with glee as more countries embrace the idea of health care as a human right.
To add: Ukraine
A case in contradiction is Estonia, but that is far too early of a transition away from socialized medicine to gauge success. (Condom sales are kicking ass there. lol)
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
fasterone wrote:WHERE THE
Anthem is $130 a month for someone my age (late 20s), non-smoker - excluding some major pre-existing conditions.
Do you have an option to buy insurance from your employer? Prices are usually better when a large group can use their weight to negotiate.
i guess it's too much to ask
a. the HI policy i'm on is 300/month. highmark blue shield. for income under 25K. if you make more than that, clearly you can afford more than that. if not, you're living beyond your means. period.
b. everybody that's for communism has themselves in mind. it's a naturally shortsighted response to the offer of everyone getting what they need. the buyer's remorse sets in once you realize you can't acheive anything greater than what everyone else is getting, and regardless of how much harder you may have to work (i.e. a steeplejack versus a janitor) you will never receive anything greater than what everyone else is getting. you have rendered yourself incapable of earning. all merit is lost.
you seem to find it comical that all the governments you have listed could possibly be infiltrated by commmunists. however, as a lover of liberty, one must come to realize that the 'left' would not be so brash as to institute an all-out coup, and rather slip in a totalitarian lifestyle, bit by bit, so as to make the pill easier to swallow, to the point of seeming natural, almost unnoticeable.
as i already pointed out, siezing on a sore spot such as healthcare provides them the perfect candy apple, as people don't actually understand the problem, and thus will accept the easy solution, no matter how preposterous. communism is the answer for the lazy and stupid.
Fear is the mindkiller.
DrFear wrote:a. the HI
It's odd because I am opposed to communism, and even socialism, yet totally for socialized medicine and I classify myself as a Liberal (Centrist). Education and understanding is what made me so happy to have and respect socialized health care. The evidence, and statistics support its benefit on countries as a whole. When I was young and immature I was far more concerned about my individual pay cheque than I was about the integrity of my society. Only later was I able to realize that the success of those around me has a direct impact on my ability to be successful.
ab-so-fucking-ridiculous
'and even socialism'? socialism is meant as a transitional phase to communism.
you're 'totally for' a socialist medical system because you get a benefit without having to do anything for it. more on this later.
if you classify yourself as a 'weak liberal' (not meant as an insult, but to contrast with far left liberals), but are opposed to socialism and communism, then you are either ignorant, in denial, or have some sort of identity crisis.
i suggest that your education has been wildly flawed. evidence and statistics that support communal health care are obviously correct. countries that adhere to a socio-communist system are (theoretically) by far more healthy, more organized, more stable, and are capable of far mightier feats of engineering than countries that do not.
sounds great, doesn't it? until you get to the part about destruction of the self. elimination of private property. it all sounds great, the working together for the 'greater good', everybody getting what they need to live and be 'happy'. until you actually walk down the street and look at all the other humans around you. do you really want the throngs of assholes, diseased, disgusting, and devious, malicious even, creatures having all the amenities you have, knowing that you are willing to do more and better than them, but will never attain anything more or better?
we're not all shiny, clean, good-willed humans. hardly any of us are. a report came out recently that seemingly alarmed the media that the U.S. has a higher incarceration rate than China, a communist country. that's because China doesn't incarcerate people who violate 'the law'. they just execute them all.
(the preceding paragraph is in no way to be taken as an endorsement of incarceration)
what will your little commie utopia decide to do with its citizens who inevitably decide to break 'the law'?
oooh, what a stab. tsk tsk
your individual pay "cheque" can be used to bolster the integrity of your wank society. using that "cheque" for investing and consuming directly affects the success of those around you, directly affects the entire country, in a positive way, thus positively affecting your ability to be successful.
capitalist economy: "what goes around, comes around, big time" OR everybody gets percent profit based on their effort (0 effort=0 gain, 1 effort=1.5 gain)
socialist structure: what you put in, everybody else gets. (you might get some too, IF you end up needing it) OR ( 1/2 effort=1 gain=10 effort)
*note: the preceding mathematical equations are intended as an alternative visio-metaphoric method of presenting the point(s) at hand, and are in no way meant to represent any real mathematical or statistical data or equation.
anyway, we've gone wildly off topic here. so do read up on your political structures, particularly the history of socio-communism.
for the thread, pro-abortion is the only sensible and logical choice that one can make. that is all the time i have for now. good night.
Fear is the mindkiller.
Quote:'and even socialism'?
I don't agree that socialism is a transitional step towards communism, but either way I don't support a fully socialist society.
I actually don't get this "benefit" from the socialized system as I above the earning point to be one that is benefiting from it. I am far more a contributor to the socialized system based on, historically, my lack of usage of it. Don't assume.
And yes, I am a 'weak liberal' or a 'fiscal conservative'. Your connection of a centrist point of view with an extreme left point of view shows a great level of ignorance for the political standing and opinions of people all over the world. I'm really not sure how to take you seriously if you can't see the difference between a centrist political perspective and a far left political perspective.
Canada has been around a long time and has traditionally always fallen to the center of the political spectrum or just right of there. We have also had socialized health care for a long time and, much to your surprise I am sure, we have not developed into a communist country nor even become more of a socialist country than we were prior to socialized health care.
I have to ask you though do you differentiate socialized health care from libraries, police, fire departments, fbi etc?
I think this is an extreme perspective and it assumes that you can not limit the things that become socialized. Many countries have demonstrated the ability to socialize health care without becomming communist countries where effort is not rewarded.
I don't really see what any of this has to do with anything. I am not endorsing communism, you are illogically suggesting that all countries with socialized health care are communist but there is just no evidence to support your claim.
I really want to take you seriously and treat your opinion with respect, but your assumptions are outlandous, unjustified, and without basis.
Commie utopia?
Was not intended as one. I credit my retired view of "me only" development into a higher level perspective as a development in maturity. This was an inwardly targeted comment, not outwardly. I apologize as I can see why you would perceive it that way.
Once again you are taking things to extremes rather than recognizing the ability for there to be a mixture and a balance. America already has some socialization mixed in with its capitalist structure, as does Canada. Health Care is one of the very few things that Canada socializes that the US does not. I am sure, if I looked hard enough, I could probably find things that are socialized in the US that are not in Canada.
well said mr. atheist. I
well said mr. atheist. I agree with a lot of your article. Many on here have pointed out how upsetting it is that the very people who want to reduce the number of abortions would get rid of contraception. I agree. that drives me nuts, b/c I believe contraception is the best way to lower the abortion rate. the pro-life movement is so narrow that even if you're not a big fan of abortion on demand, if you don't agree with the pro-life movement that it's "wrong" or a "sin"every time, if you actually have compassion for those who get abortions, if you don't think planned parenthood is evil and plotting to kill all babies, you must be "pro abortion", and you must just love the idea of it! what nonsense. I think the website godlessprolifers.org (agnostic and atheist prolifers) does a much better job b/c they do support contraception and sex education. honestly the only reason I can see that a rational person wouldn't is religion.
answers to dumb questions
then you're not very knowledgeable on the topic. which explains much of the confusion you seem to be having, which you're then blaming on me.....
you may well not, and while i'm sure that's very noble of you, supporting any part of socializing one's country only aids the agenda of those who wish to socialize it in its entirety, albeit by bits and pieces...
this "noble contributor" position is what's referred to as Conservative Socialism. you're helping the less fortunate without actually addressing the issues of why they're less fortunate.
and you show a great level of ignorance with regard to political categorizations. the opinions of people are of no value, as i am dealing in fact only. i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that by 'fiscal conservative', you mean 'fiscally conservative liberal', and are not contrasting yourself with 'social conservatives'. still, qualifying oneself as a 'centrist' would involve balancing your left with your right, and no amount of right leaning will balance out support for the socialization of a private property as massive as the health care industry.
define a long time! the communist party doesn't care about time, the entire communist philosophy is based on the gradual changes in social structure from the beginning of humanity!
someone asked this before, and i didn't dignify it with an answer in the hopes that a light bulb would come on and the asker would answer it for themselves.
no. duh. they're not privately held companies or organizations, are they??? what the hell kind of question is that? it just serves to illustrate how unaware you are of the systems at work around you.
of course it's an extreme perspective, but do you seriously mean to say that this is not a possible outcome? it assumes the worst possible scenario, yes, but it doesn't assume that you can't limit the things that become socialized. you can limit them, assuming everybody else is with you in said limitation, and also, with each individual allowance, socialist-minded individuals become more and more empowered, exponentially limiting your ability to say 'nay'. there are a lot of assumptions, or variables, at play in dealing with the future, however, the eradication of communist philosophy is not one of them. with regard to your "many countries" statement, name one that did not experience some socialist uprising in the 19th-early-20th century, and that does not currently have members of a socialist party holding public office. as i said, time is meaningless to these people. they are always waiting by the door. just because they are not currently wielding power, doesn't mean they're not trying.
not 'are communist', 'are supporting communism'.
and using made-up words like "outlandous" is supposed to...what? make me feel like i'm wrong, or nuts?
duly noted.
you can find things of that nature in any country. that's beside the point. the point is that i'm against them, and you're not. but you should be. that's all, really.
Fear is the mindkiller.
I really have to admit that
I really have to admit that I find your entire stance absurd and paranoid.
I don't even know why I continue the conversation any farther as it simply seems like you have fine tuned your fear of communism to a degree way beyond reason that I simply can not appreciate or relate to.
Regarding police / libraries etc you say:
I'm confused..."no" to my question would suggest that you don't differentiate, yet you go on to seemingly defend them. I will assume that means that you do differentiate them and feel them acceptable?
Health care, here, is not a privately held company or organization either, so why would I need to differentiate the two? There is a gigantic list of socialized services from roads, welfare, protection...the list goes on and on. I view health care as an essential service, and all other essential services are socialized to ensure that they are maintained. Why is health care any different than education?
You feel that it's not even worth a response because those industries are currently not private? Surely something being private that could be private should be private in your system to push farther away from communism, no? Surely libraries and schools could be fully privatized. Why not? The implications of taking the socialization away from the police and fire departments could create some issues at times, but I'm sure there are many organizations that would jump at the opportunity to win these contracts.
So I have to re-iterate, I don't see the difference between health care and those services, yet you appear to. Could you please elaborate on why those services are acceptable socializations where as health care is not? Is it simply because it's not yet socialized?
Really care ? Love life
Really care ? Love life ?
Be a scientist, or at least support the most godly life worship of all, SCIENCE ..... to eliminate all unwanted pregnancy ETC ...... go science ..... in the quest for utopia of perfection .... never surrender ..... let's have our cake and eat it too ..... why not ????
Atheism Books.
you're more confused than moses
again i'll say that it's you who are confused, and are attempting to blame your confusion on me. case in point:
where??? quote it! quote the sentences i use to defend social services. now.
yes. please read carefully.
your question: "I have to ask you though do you differentiate socialized health care from libraries, police, fire departments, fbi etc?"
do I differentiate socialized health care from socialized libraries, policed, fire, etc.....?
no, i don't differentiate them. no is the answer, was the answer, and will be the answer. the only thing that can change here is your interpretation of my answer, namely from 'incorrect' to 'correct'.
nope. no i can't. what i WOULD like is for you to elaborate on exactly what you misread, so i can correct these obvious miswordings in the future.........
Fear is the mindkiller.
Everything after "no" read
Everything after "no" read like a defence of those industries. I did state in my post that I found your response confusing and also established what I found confusing. You'll notice I use terms like "seemingly".
As for "no"...absurd. That's all I can say about it. No reason to argue it. I don't know how a society would work with no socialization. People would pay for their own personal police? Or are you still talking about socialized payment of private companies? Would those private companies follow our laws or are you suggesting to abolish them as well and eliminate government since it is also socialized?
Eh, there's no real reason for us to talk. You see me as ignorant about a grand multi-hundred/thousand old communist conspiracy to take over the world and I see you as paranoid and absurd.
There is no productive conversation here. I am just glad that I am living in a country where, as a community, we agree that life is more important than the almighty dollar.