A topic requested by Bart.

Since the discussion was sort going along the "people from X got to Y for health care" stories, I figure I'll toss out a few examples I know of.

My parents go to mexico to fill their perscriptions, and to have their dental work done.  They live part-time in texas, in an area with a lot of retirees.  Many of the people they live around go to mexico for cheaper health care (though as far as I know, it's only for simple stuff like drugs and dental work), so have figured out what doctors/dentists are good, and let each other know.  From what they tell me, the doctors/dentists they go see primarily serve americans coming over the border.

On the other end of the country, my grandparents go to canada to fill their perscriptions.  They live in washington state, and often get together with a large group of friends, and make a day trip out of going into canada and getting their meds.

I now live in the UK, and haven't had to use the health care system yet myself, but my girlfriend has, and she says she's much more comfortable with the system here than in the states.  Some friends of ours who have moved to london from Illinois said the same thing when I saw them this weekend.

These are all just single examples, and I don't know how representative they are.  I think Falkus hit the nail on the head, though.  The US system works great for wealthy and upper middle class people.  It doesn't work well at all for people who are struggling to get by.  Like I've said a number of times now, the issue is whether you view health care as a right, or a luxury.  If it's a luxury, then it's not a problem that poor people can't afford it.  If it's a right, then it is a problem that poorer people can't get adequate health care.  If the goal is to get the best health care possible to those who can afford it, then the US system works well.  If the goal is to get adequate care to everyone, regardless of their past health or income, then it doesn't work well.

There are so many things influencing life expectancy and infant mortality, I wouldn't depend on that alone as a barometer for the health care system in general.  Maybe the US just has more violent crime, more extreme poverty, a poorer view on abortion, more problems with drugs...



Try looking into security.  Or moving.  There's plenty of work down in my area!



Part of the problem is our public hospitals are largely being swamped with illegal immigrants - people who don't exist, according to the system, can't pay and can't even be tracked down to pay, don't pay taxes and, perhaps most importantly, don't get any sort of preventative medicine.  In many ways, the US system is working poorly just because it has SO MANY people coming in, often-times using the wrong methods to do so.

I'm not sure I agree that this is the reason poorer people can't get as good health care in the US.  It's not because illegal immigrants (who often do pay taxes, by the way) are filling up the hospitals, it's because they can't afford it.  If it's considered a luxury, that's simply how it's supposed to be.  It's not a failure of the system, its an expected, predictable, (and presumably acceptable) outcome of the system.  It's no more of a failure than is the fact that poor people don't drive porches as much as rich people.  If you consider health care to be something that you get if you can pay for it, then people who can't pay for it shouldn't get it.

Again, the issue comes down to whether you think everyone should be able to get health care, or if you think it's a luxury that only some people will be able to afford.  Arguments can be made either way, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue, but I think that's the fundamental point of disagreement between the two sides.

If I'm a state government and I have say 100,000 people in a particular area.  I assume no more than say .01% will be in the emergency room at a given time (these numbers are all made up, BTW) and I have a set budget based on the concept of there being 100,000 people, I will make a hospital to support 10 people in the emergency room at a given time.

However, if I have 40,000 undocumented immigrants, my numbers are clearly very off.  And since these immigrants can't get preventative medicine, their rate of needing the emergency room will be well in excess of .01%.  Let's say it's .05% instead.  Now I'm looking at 20 people in the emergency room at any given time.  My emergency room use rate has just tripled!  However I'm not getting any further funding for that purpose.

This will clearly have more of an impact in some places more than others.

Another example, contrasted with say England, is a question of population density.  There are parts of the US where it's one person per hundred miles squared (or some similarly ridiculously low number).  It's simply not economical to build a hospital there and stock it for every possible eventuality.  Who wants to build a ten million dollar hospital to support a town of 100 people with no kids and a gross income of $200k a year?  It just doesn't make good fiscal sense.  The budget falls apart if you follow that thinking.  England does not have a lot of land with such low population densities, therefore this problem doesn't arise (similarly with education, coincidentally).

The US may have other mitigating factors making health care more expensive, too expensive to reasonably support with tax dollars.  Malpractice insurance is a great example.  If every doctor has to pay $50,000 a year in malpractice insurance, that means the taxpayer is now paying $50,000 a year for that insurance.  As people have pointed out, you can't very well sue your doctor for cutting off the wrong leg in Cuba.

Your hypothetical situation is arguing that the problem is too many people are going to the hospital.  That's not the problem, though (well, it's a problem, but it's a problem everywhere, and one that we shouldn't expect to go away entirely unless we want to spend lots and lots of money on it).  The problem is that poorer people can't afford health insurance in the US.  People with a past record of health problems have trouble affording it too.  They can go to the emergency room, true, but that's not what most people need in terms of health care.

Long lines when you go to the emergency room are not what most people are talking about when they say the US health care system isn't working as well as some other country's.  Long lines are a cost/benefit issue.  We know how to make them go away, it just an issue of whether or not it's worth it.  Having to wait 4 hours before a doctor can look at your broken arm may be very annoying, but how much are we willing to pay (in fees or taxes) to get it down to 3 hours?  two hours?  ten minutes?  That's just economics, and it's not a sign that the system is broken, just that we've made a decision about how long is an acceptable wait.  That can be debated, of course, but I think it's a side issue.

More important than waits for an emergency room, though, is whether someone has insurance at all, which makes it possible to go to the doctor without waiting until the emergency room is the way to go.  When people talk about the US system being broken, they're talking about the fact that some people can get health insurance, and thus health care outside of an emergency room, and other people can't.  They're talking about the fact that what kind of treatment you get depends on how much money you make.  It's not a complaint about efficiency of treatment, it's a complaint about a lack of treatment.  People talking about health care reform aren't talking about building a hosiptal in every tiny town in wyoming or whatever.  The issues you bring up are problems that any system, private, socialized, or otherwise has to deal with, and aren't the issues that health care reform is trying to fix.  The points you raise are all real issues, they're just not the issues that tell us which system is better, because both systems have to deal with them.  The costs of malpractice insurance don't disappear because we have a privitized health care system (in fact, I think malpractice insurance is higher here than elsewhere), so saying it's "too expensive" to pass on to taxpayers doesn't make much sense.  Tax payers are already paying for it, it's just not spread out evenly.  Likewise, getting people in low-population-density areas health care will be expenisive (perhaps too expensive) no matter which system is used.  The fact that it's privitized doesn't solve that problem, and neither would socializing it.  It's a problem that has to be dealt with economically either way, so it's not really an arguement for or against either system.  Same with illegal immigrants.  Under either system you have to figure out how to deal with that problem, and neither seems to have any particular advantage over the other in that respect.

Again, I think it boils down to how we view health care: is it a right that we are morally obligated to provide to all people, regardless of income, or is it a luxury like anything else?  More bluntly, do we think poor people should get medical treatments they can't afford?  Is health care more like voting (ie, everyone should be able to do it, rich, poor, or otherwise), or is it like a sports car (ie, you have to forgo something else in order to get it.  And if you don't have enough to forgo, you just can get it)?

Not precisely.  The problem is that too many unanticipated people are going to the emergency room, some because they're not documented, some because they aren't receiving preventative medicine.  In my opinion, we should offer undocumented people either FULL preventative medical coverage, including dental, or none at all, including emergency room services.  Going half way is just stupid, and it's going to kill us.



I would disagree.  If you die in the emergency room waiting in a line (which has happened) or there is no local emergency room available to you, I daresay that is a major lapse in medical services.  I would consider 'timely' a requirement as to whether medical services are appropriate or not.  My obstetrician being available tomorrow doesn't help me give birth today.

I also am of the opinion that there are some services we shouldn't be offering for free.  Sure, it makes sense to fix a broken bone for people who can't afford it.  But wart removal?  What about arthritis treatment?  Which of these do you go to the emergency room for?  It's precisely that decision to go to the emergency room which serves as the bar for me to determine what is a serious medical issue that needs to either be dealt with or prevented (example, a life-threatening abscess can be avoided by letting the guy get fillings), and what they need to cough up some money for.



But it does.  If the government cannot afford to pay for a service that rich people can afford, then the government can't afford it, and that's the end of discussion.  If malpractice insurance is too expensive for public hospitals, we either need to offer an alternative to the current insurance options, or reduce the liability of doctors at public hospitals.  You can't pay for something you can't afford.



Generally these people are supported by local doctors' offices, not hospitals.  However, these I think would be better supported by private members of the community, rather than a public servant who is posted there.

Even though I'm not sure which of the two option is best, I probably agree that those two options are better than the half-way solution.


True, but I don't view those as a difference between private and public health care.  Timely is a requirement for either system.  And the cost to provide timely health care to X people is the same whether they're paying for it with taxes or with their spending money.  In either system a decision has to be made on just how much "timeliness" we can afford.  I suppose that there is the difference in that a privatized system you can provide different levels of timeliness to different people, depending on what they're willing to pay.  But again, I think that boils down to the question of whether timely health care is viewed as a right, or a luxury.


That's fair enough too, but it can be implemented in either system.  Socialized health care doesn't need to be an "anything and everything is absolutely free" system.  I think it's entirely possible to have a public-funded system which only covered 'necessary' treatments.  That would be a case of some treatments being viewed as rights, and others as luxuries.


But we're already affording it.  We're already paying for it right now.  I don't see why it's going to cost more if it's a public system than a privite system.  The total cost for all the current doctor's malpractice insurance is already being paid for by taxpayers.  It's just being pay for with taxpayers spending money, instead of with tax dollars.  By spreading the cost out over all people, instead of just charging those who go to the doctor, it makes it possible for more people to see the doctor.


Okay, that seems like an argument in favor of socializing health care.  Or at least changing the private system we have now.




Why do you think that?  In the private case, the service provided depends heavily on how much the people in this small community can spend on it.  If it's one individual doctor in either case, how much difference does it make if his paycheck comes from the government, or from the people he treats?

You keep saying that things are the problem of privatized medicine as well.  However, we really aren't discussing privatized medicine; we all agree that in either the Canadian or the American system, someone with lots of cash will get good, timely medical treatment.  On the flip side, we all agree a private hospital in either situation that fails to provide good, timely treatment will go out of business.  This requires no artificial meddling.  We are, rather, discussing public hospitals, which may offer terrible, slow, overpriced service, but still stay in business, and a system which only offers slow, overpriced service is not meeting the needs of the people, and so is not really a valid solution to the socialized medicine question.




Here's the kicker though, if you raised my taxes to be equal to what I'm paying now in medical insurance and medical costs, and then expected me to go to some trashy government hospital, I'd move (well, probably not, but I would stage major campaigns against whatever politician made that decision).  Heath, who probably pays a lot more for his insurance, would probably have even more cause to complain.

And of course, the people on the bottom who get free medical care wouldn't have any incentive not to abuse it.  Have a migraine?  Hungry?  Want a wart removed?  Who cares, you're not paying for it!



No, I wasn't going for that as such, but imagine this.

We have the current system as it works now; people with jobs get health insurance, or pay out of pocket.  They have a wide choice of confusing health insurance plans, but basically most of their medical costs are taken care of.  If something goes wrong, they can sue the doctor and retire for life.

Medicare and the like are abolished.  The system is too complex and too expensive how it runs now.  However, the government owns public hospitals, and some private hospitals may voluntarily join in.  A person can walk into any of these hospitals, show some sort of proof of identity (to prevent scamming the system), such and so-forth, and you have a selection of services you can select from, such as emergency room services, vaccinations, general check-ups, dental check-ups, etc.  You can get all of these either for some reasonable co-pay or for free (and maybe tag something on the 'for-free' - things should have some cost, financial or otherwise, to prevent people from being wasteful).  HOWEVER, you can expect worse service, longer lines and, unlike the other place, if the doctor screws up, he has very limited liability.

Because of the limited liability, you're going to get a lot more trashy doctors.  You will have poor people who need some serious surgery, it goes wrong, and they don't get $10M out of it, but instead maybe $20k.  But at the same time, they at least get surgery they might not have had an option for otherwise.  Meanwhile, I, as a rich person, can elect to go to the free place to get my checkup done (which I probably won't because there are sick people there), or to my nicer place, but regardless, my costs don't go up significantly.

That sounds acceptable to me.  It also sounds like socialized health care.  Maybe the disagreement is more over what we should call it ("socialized" "public" "whatever") than what we'd like to see?

I think there is also an assumption that if doctors are getting their paycheck from the government, then automatically the service they offer is going to be substandard, slow, etc.   I don't think that necessarily has to be the case.

Imagine there are two hospitals, one that'll pay doctors $200k a year, but expects you to never mess up in a surgery or diagnosis, and one that pays $100k a year, but understands if you make a mistake now and again (or maybe even expects it), where will you be going if you're a skilled doctor?  Where will you go if you're a lousy doctor?

I think the problem with my idea is, right now, poor people expect to have the same quality of health care as rich people, but without the cost (because they can't afford it).  And that's what the current medical program attempts to provide (and of course, necessarily fails at).  If we say 'well, we can't provide that level of quality at that price', then at least we can provide something to help the problem without bankrupting the system.

I thought it might help to add some infomation. As a social worker, I'm a little too familiar with federal policy on health care. Now, keeping in mind that individual states can add services, but not subtract them, this is the essential facts on health care.

Children under 19 and preganant citizens are eligible for fundemental medical care, including doctor's visits, three prescriptions, and some testing. It will pay for birth and some necessary medical proceedures. It does not pay for anything elective. Only certain doctors, clinics and hospitals are available and that on a first come first serve basis.

People over age 60-65 (depending on social security issues) are eligible for limited medical care, usually suppliments to medicare.

Men and women between 19 and 65 are not eligible for medical assistance unless they a)have children B)are disabled AND fall within income restrictions.

So, no. Poor people do not have the same options as anyone else and are well-aquainted with the idea that their care will not be as good. The rules for unnaturalized citizens are different, but more difficult. The thing about emergency rooms is 'some' not all, are required to help in event of emergency care. That's why there are overpopulation issues, because that is the only health care some people can ever get. Generally, it is a long wait for a spotty bit of doctoring.

I disagree.  It's not an issue of getting the same health care, it's getting any health care.  Poor people aren't saying "I expect to see the top expert in the country, and I'll settle for nothing less!"  They're saying "I've got no insurance.  None.  Zip, nada.  What can you do for me?  Nothing?  Crap."  It's not a quality issue right now, it's a quantity issue--meaning the poor get zero.  Not lower quality, none at all.  Or next to none at all.

As for the two hypothetical hospitals, I think that's intentionally set up to fail.  Why offer them half of what they make in the private sector?  Why not make it competetive?  Either through comparable pay, or by offering better benefits, or whatever?  Yes, it'll cost more, but that's an economic decision that can be made.  We don't have to set it up from the start as a second-rate system.  The thing is we're already paying more than it costs for that kind of system for our current system.    Again, it comes down to whether it's a viewed as a right or a priviledge.  If it's a luxury, there's no reason rich people should pay for poor people's medicine (and no reason anyone should--poor people will go without, just like they go without fancy cars and caviar).  On the other hand, if it's a right, it's something we need to pay for.  We need to cough up the money, and make a viable, decent system.  Not one that's half-way there and done on the cheap.  If all we consider to be a "right" is a half-trained, unethical quack who screws up every other time, fine, we can institute that kind of system, but I don't think that's what anyone is aiming for.

In my area, I'm not aware of anyone who can't walk into an emergency room and expect treatment, insurance or no.  So your statement about poor people just trying to GET treatment is false.  Similarly, as Rose pointed out, pregnant women and children don't just get treatment, they get the BEST treatment in the area (I know from experience), equal to that of those who are actually paying into the system.

Why don't public hospitals offer the same salary as private ones?  Yes, for one because it would seriously increase the price.  Probably what would follow is the administrators, who are on a limited budget, would hire fewer doctors, which means we're back to people not getting service.  And when the governor comes along and says 'well, we need to free up money for my new project', public health is going to stick out like a fat, sore thumb just waiting to get cut.  So no administrator is going to want to offer fully competitive salaries if he can help it.  Remember, government run means they are NOT interested in providing the best service, in getting customer returns or whatever!  They don't follow the same rules as a private hospital.

Again, though, if emergency room treatment is all you think is needed, fair enough, the system is working.  If you think preventative medicine is also needed, then it's not.  Also, even though someone won't be turned away if they walk into the emergency room, that doesn't mean they're not hounded by the bills for the rest of their lives or don't have trouble if they need to go back again.  If you think that's how it should be (and the case can certainly be made), then the system is fine.


Government hospitals are about as interested in providing the best service as private ones.  In both cases, it's a means to an end, not a goal in-and-of itself.  The goal of private hospitals is to make money.  Anything that causes them to loose money (such as treating poor people) is something they'll do their best to avoid.  The reason government run hospitals don't provide the best service is because they haven't made that the goal.  They've made "the best we can get for X dollars" the goal.  If you make X bigger, you'll get better service.  If it's possible for the govenor to cut the budget in order to fund something else, then it's clearly not being viewed as a right, but as a luxury.  The governor can't (or at least shouldn't) get away with removing someone's right to vote because voting booths are too expensive.  They can't stop worrying about warrants just because it'd be cheaper to let the cops search whenever they want.  In order to make a system work that has health care as a right, it has to be treated as such, and currently it's not.  In order to change the system, you really have to fundamentally change it.  If people accept it being done half-way, then that's the kind of system they'll get, in health care, or anything else.  If we want a good system, it'll cost money, and it will keep costing money.  We all agree that we can't have a decent system that covers everyone and costs nothing to no one.  No one is proposing such a system (well, those of us not running for office aren't, at least).  People who are serious about health care reform, I would argue (even if I'm not sure if I agree with them), are saying "hey, this is something important.  Fundamentally important.  And we need to treat it as such.  Medicine shouldn't just be for the wealthy.  Your health shouldn't be dependent on your income.  We, as a country, have a moral obligation to provide quality health care to everyone.  Yes, it'll cost us money.  Quite a bit of money.  But so does national defense, so does running the government, so does holding elections, and any number other things.  We feel health care should be on the list of things we're willing to pay a lot of money for to make sure it gets done right."  Now, the fact that we're already paying a lot of money for the current system, and it isn't providing adequate health care for lots of people adds an interesting twist to things.  But I think it still boils down to whether people think it's something we have an obligation to do, and do right, or if it's everybody for themselves.  It's an issue of whether everyone should make a sacrifice for the good of the nation as a whole, or whether everyone should just take care of themselves.  Both sides can make reasonable arguments, I think.  But I think neither should avoid their most unpleasant points.  One said should be honest enough to say "yes, we're going to have to increase taxes to pay for this (though perhaps not by as much as you'll save by not having to buy insurance)," and the other side should be honest enough to say "Sorry poor people, this is just one more thing you don't get to have.  It's not our job to pay for your health care.  Them's the breaks."

*** Based on this, you've got my vote.

I'm with Tycho on this.

Incidentally, I didn't say they get the best..they get the only. The poor services I was talking about were for them. The rest have the emergency or private pay (think 100s for single prescriptions and 300 for doctor visits) which when you consider most don't make enough for rent, food and gas, makes going to see a doctor when the fix is reasonable almost impossible.

Personally, I would far rather pay taxes on health care for all people vs many other things (which I won't list here)..Tycho covered it well. And I too would vote for it.

Glad for your guys votes of support, but I feel I should clarify that I'm trying to express what others feel, not necessarily what I think is best myself.  I'm still not certain if I think health care is a right or a luxury, I can see arguments for it both ways.  I suppose I'm more sympathetic to the 'right' side than the 'luxury' side at the moment, but I'm still not 100% sure.  My posts have mainly been meant as a "this is what they think" thing than a "this is what I think" thing.  And of course, katisara taking one side only pushes me towards the opposite. ;)

Like I said, from my personal experience, the pregnant women got the same great service as everyone else - Shady Grove and Holy Cross are two of the best hospitals in the country for such things, and both were happy to accept that insurance, with no loss of coverage.  Same with other specialists.

Not that I'm saying we should go out of our way to deprive people of that, and certainly I think that making sure children get good medical care and education regardless as to station is important (as opposed to adults, who are now responsible for themselves), but the argument that poor (pregnant) people aren't getting good care or even the best care is patently false.

*** I think perhaps it might be more accurate to say that while not all poor people aren't getting good care, a great many (too many) aren't even getting any care (non-emergency, I mean).

Fair enough, Tycho. I tend to want to take the opposite side, regardless of what I think.

Katisara, it depends on the individual hospitals. Sometimes the best is available (especially if it is a teaching hospital), sometimes not. The three top hospitals in my old area were not available to medicaid clients. They do have to take emergencies, but for regular visits and service..not so much. A lot of it is simple cost effectiveness and public image.

Keep in mind too, that just because you are seen at the same hospital, it doesn't necessarily mean you get the same treatment. Some hospitals that take public welfare cases give them a sharply different quality of care. That isn't right, according to their oaths and such, but that doesn't make it less true.

I'm not saying that all medicaid clients get worse service than private insurance clients, but that it can (and is) often a real issue for these people.

So again though, the question does come down to whether free medical care is a right (I won't go so far as to say that medical care is a luxury.  Food is neither a right, nor a luxury, for example, nor is shelter, and I'd consider medical care in the same category as both of those.)  Or another way to put it, whose responsibility is your medical care?

There is one group of people who, unilaterally, cannot and should not be responsible for their own medical care, and that's children.  I have absolutely no problem with offering quality medical care, especially specialists and preventative care, to children.  I suspect most people will agree with that statement.  Similarly, the very seriously mentally or physically disabled would fall into this category.

However, once you're an adult, my view is that you are responsible for yourself.  No one else is responsible for giving you a house or buying you food, nor for paying your taxes or raising your children, *YOU* are responsible, you are an adult and that's part of what that encompasses.  Hence, while medical care may be a right, it's not a right that the government has to fight for you to have, it's a right the government must PERMIT you to have (so the government can't actively restrict your getting medical care).  Just like you have a right to property; the government cannot restrict you from owning property, however the government does not have to give you property.

So in that regard, I don't feel that the government has much place requiring one group of people pay for the care of another group of people.  I can understand the idea of welfare - providing a safety net while people who have paid into the system so they have time to recover (this just makes good economic sense - forcing everyone to save for a long, unanticipated period of unemployment ultimately has a very serious impact on the economy, so it ultimately pays for itself, if properly managed and distributed), but that isn't the same as saying a person who is flipping burgers should get all sorts of expensive medical treatments at the taxpayers' expense.

Related to this, I find it odd that we give so much money to old people.  Didn't these old people have their whole lives to save up for being old?  It's not like it crept up on them, or that young twenty-year-olds are surprised one morning by being 60 years older.  What are these people putting back into the system?  Does it make sense to say 'this person has a right to health care, ergo the government should pay $20k a day to keep his machines running', or even simpler, 'the people should pay $2k a week to buy this old person medicine'.  I don't mean to sound harsh, but we get old and die for a good reason.  Is it prudent to invest so much of our time and energy elongated the lives of people who have both had a time to invest this energy themselves when they were young, and won't provide anything back to society?  What good is this?  Who does it benefit, except the doctors?

My opinion is that it is the government's responsibility to provide health care. It's not as if the government shies away from legislating in our lives, and as taxpayers for all sorts of things, it only makes sense that part of our money goes to pay for our health care. This is the stance that most western societies have taken and it seems to be a sensible one.

The idea that children should recieve care if needed is the primary motivation for the subsized medical that exists. That's why eligibility is so limited. Part of the reason I'm in favor of government provided health care is that the children need healthy parents to provide and care for them. And for single adults, well, how can we fairly argue that just because you breed you automatically deserve better health care than someone who hasn't? I also think that economically, it is more sensible to pay for cheaper preventative and minor care than wait til the illness is so severe that it requires emergency treatment.

As for the older people, most programs that assist them are social security and medicare (of which I'm certainly no expert)  but as far as the 'welfare' system goes they receive help paying premiums generally, and the maximum check they can recieve is about 500 a month, and this is expected to pay for food, shelter, medical, gas..ect. Not exactly a princely living.

As to why? Seeing someone helpless and in an untenable situation makes others want to help that. It kind of is a side of human nature. Not a bad one, I might note. Add to that a growing subculture of people who lived life beyond their means, were unable to save and have enough organization to influence voting trends and you have your assistance. Good enough reason for them to get the perks? I don't think so. Would I change it? No, because I had grandparents and I'd have wanted them cared for if I couldn't do it.

And this is precisely why I oppose socialized health care.

"The government steps all over our rights everywhere else, so we might as well get SOMETHING good out of it!"  Absolutely not.  How about, instead of making deals with the devil, we tell the government to butt out, and start pushing back against that inappropriate legislation rather than rolling over for it?



Sick, aged and disabled parents have been doing an excellent job caring for their children since basically the beginning of time.  I really can't see this argument holding much water.



I agree with this, but this firstly doesn't tell me whether it's better to pay for preventative medicine or to pull back emergency room services, and secondly doesn't encourage me (as the administrator) to support any sort of 'general care' that isn't preventative.  I'll pay for you to have your teeth fixed, but not for glasses, because poor eyesight doesn't generally result in any sort of worse medical development.  I also won't pay for your degenerative disease for the same reason, the cost outweighs the benefits.



The maximum check I expect to receive when I retire is on the order of $70k/year, but that's because I plan ahead.



Then let people help!  We have plenty of charity organizations that offer this sort of support, voluntarily and efficiently.  This isn't the government's business, to save us from ourselves.  Freedom means having the right to fail.



Your parents didn't work, earn a retirement, put money in savings?  All of mine did - or they kept working when others did retire.  Unless there was some reason they physically couldn't work, I don't see a lot of reason to justify the 'well, you bought a luxury car and now have no money for medication, let me help you out' mindset.  Saying they control a large voting block isn't an excuse, if anything it's more argument to fight back.  If we let Rome belong to the circus, the whole empire will fall.

I think this sort of gets back to the liberal/conservative mindset thing I brought up a while back.  Liberals are thinking in this case "there are people not getting adequate health care.  What can we do to help them" and conservatives are thinking more along the lines of "who's abusing the system and how to do we stop people from getting a free ride."  It's the issue of what's the lesser evil: letting people go without health care, or someone getting health care they may not 'deserve.'  Both sides, I would say, want everyone to work hard and earn adequate coverage.  Given that that ideal situation isn't likely to happen, there are two ways to approximate it:  give everyone adequate health care, even if they're not working hard, OR only give it to people who can afford it (also whether they've earned it or not).  The first tries to avoid letting anyone go without, the latter tries to make sure everyone works.  Both sides have merit, though I'm more sympathetic in general to the help everyone and tolerate the freeloaders side.

The trouble, I think, is that we don't really live in a pure meritocracy.  Being rich doesn't actually imply you've worked harder than someone who's poor, nor does it mean you've planned better, are smarter, or anything else.  If you've got rich parents, like as not you're going to end up rich yourself, regardless of how good at planning you are or how much effort you put into getting rich.  If everyone started equal, and their wealth really were based mostly on how hard you work, or how efficient you are, or whatever, then the "it's your responsibility, no one's going to do it for you" arguments would have more strength, I think.  If we consider it okay for children of rich people to get luxuries they didn't earn, then I don't see why we should be so worried if poor people do.

Another way of looking at it, is that how society treats the helpless says a lot about the society, even if the helpless people are that way because of their own decisions.  It's sort of like the parable of the prodigal son.  Was the father in the story wrong to welcome his son back?  Should he have said "sorry, son.  You got your share already, and you blew it?"  Should we, as a society, emulate the father in the story?

You oppose health care because we already pay for other things? I think less that we should get something from our government and more that the government owes its citizenry a certain amount of return on their investments.

Strictly speaking, glasses would afford a more competant worker, so I would say that it ought to be included. The degenerative disease, unless a case can be made that there is a full recovery available, I can see your point. I don't agree, but its certainly valid as an argument. And beyond preventative, there are minor illnesses such as colds and flu or infections that can be easily cured but can develop into things like pneumonia, ect. I think that would be a fairly valid case for general care.

And it isn't about not working, its about wages being too low to do more than subsist on what they make. I read (and no, I don't remember where) that most people are two paychecks away from poverty. That's a lot of people who might want to save, but lack the means. Beyond that statement I really ought to take it to the education/career thread or someplace more appropriate.

I think you misrepresent the conservative cause.  I do understand some people get a 'free ride'.  I spent four years in Venezuela, surrounded by the children of oil barons, who were born into absolute wealth, while surrounded by abject poverty.

Rather, the problem is people shirking their responsibilities, or more importantly, shirking them on to me.  If somebody came up to me and said 'hey man, can I borrow a dollar', I'd probably give him a dollar (well, not really, I've taken to carrying oranges or bananas I'll give away, now that I work downtown, but you get the idea).  Whereas if the guy comes up and says 'hey man, you owe me a dollar', well that's a different matter.  It's a question of entitlement.  I don't mind people being allowed to have care, allowed to have more than they deserve, by the goodwill of others.  But that isn't the same as my being required, by threat of incarceration, to give to others.  That is a violation of my freedoms, under the guise of charity, but it's certainly no charity if I have a gun to my head (and I literally do have a gun to my head, because if I don't pay up, people with guns will come to my house and drag me off).

That is what I object to.

Maybe I do. I'm not conservative, more the bleeding heart liberal (if you couldn't tell), and if I was inappropriate it wasn't intentional. I've never been great at debating things, which is generally why I simply read.

Fundementally I agree that no one should be forced to be charitable, since that essentially negates the meaning. I don't think individuals as a rule should be responsible for the caring of others; I believe that government as an organization would function better if it provided for its society as part of its budget. Given the economy in which we live and the availability of jobs, credit and all those money issues, more people than not need the help. In best case, everyone would be capable of caring for themselves, but I think most people have proven they just can't. For whatever reason, good or bad. It isn't that we don't pay enough as taxpayers, I just think the budget needs to be reworked to include health care. From my perspective, it is part of what a government should do, take care of its people. It's a form of a safety net, just enlarged from the very minimal that currently exists.

That's fair enough, and it's a valid argument.  But again, you're stating your argument in a "what's it costing me?" frame.  I really am not trying to misrepresent the conservative view, but it really sounds like "shirking responsibility" is the same as "getting a free ride" to me.  It really sounds like "it's violating my rights" means you're thinking about yourself in this case, whereas people in favor of the health care reform are thinking about how it will benefit others.

To put another spin on it, you view government health care as someone coming up to you and saying "you owe me a dollar," so you don't like it.  People in favor of it view it as "will my dollar make this country a better place," so do like it.  Both views are valid, and can be argued.  But it's that difference in mindset that leads to the difference of opinion.  It sounds like socialized health care, in your mind, is the government taking your money against your will and giving it to someone who is shirking their responsibility.  To others, in their mind, it's a way to help people who need help, and thus make the country better overall.  Both can be right at the same time.  It could be both of those things.  The difference is just the points that are focussed on by each side.    I'm not trying to say the conservative side is bad, or wrong, just that it views things from a different angle, which is often the "why should I have to help that guy?" angle.

No, I don't support paying for that because it supports a mindset I am fundamentally opposed to, that of decreasing our individual freedoms and trading them in for inconsequential comforts.



So can a college education, a car, a wife, an apartment, a stack of suits, leisure time, vacations, massages and so on.  Should the government provide those too?

If a person decides he's going to get a better job and requires glasses to do that, there are plenty of methods to get the $400 that don't require it being given away to him.



In most cases, I would disagree with that.  Firstly, there really isn't any cure for the common cold.  Pouring anti-biotics and the like into people to cure minor ailments is also poor practice in general because it breeds resistance.  Of course, if you have risk factors, it's a different matter.



Why are they two paychecks away from poverty?  Is it because their paycheck is so low, or because they've spent too much on their credit card, spend too much month-to-month on cable TV and car payments?  The average US citizen has one of the highest standards of living, as measured in just stuff, as well as the highest accumulation of debt.  We live in a material world where we're taught it's okay to go in debt to get nice things.  Maybe we should stop supporting that behavior now, before it blows up in our faces.



Do you see how these two sentences contradict each other?  The government is FOR and OF the people.  You can't say the government is responsible for caring for people without, by extension, saying these bunch of individuals are responsible for that as well (unless you're planning on getting some other government to care for those people.  I certainly wouldn't object to Canada's health plan if, by that, we meant Canadian tax payers supporting Americans getting health insurance.)



I again, I disagree.  I would say more people WANT the help than not, but that isn't the same as need.  If more people stopped living beyond their means, they would stop finding themselves in mountains of debt.



It's more of a question of justice.  If the government came up to my next door neighbor and said he had to pay more taxes because he's homosexual (just to throw out an example), I'd complain, not because I benefit from complaining, but because it seems like it's an injustice.  I don't support big government, and socialized health care is making it bigger, much bigger.  Big government is a threat, and it's unfair to those, all of those, who prefer government not meddle in their affairs, for better or for worse.

If liberals in general feel they need to help other people, why don't they start donating more, voluntarily, to causes which do that, rather than force others to support their agenda?  Isn't that contrary to freedom, to respecting other opinions, by saying 'you will put money into this program I think is right, or police will break down your door and drag you to jail'?  I fail to see how socialized medicine is in any way 'liberal'.  In fact, to the contrary, it seems downright fascist.

Is there any part of government that can't be viewed this way, though?  Is government run police 'facist?'  Government run fire departments?  Energy providers?  Navy?  Postal systems?  You are force, at gun point as you put it, to pay for all of these.  Are you opposed to government in general, or just "big" government?  What's the difference between big government, and necessary government?  Perhaps the point of disagreement?

Also, I think the examples you give again point out the difference in mind set.  There are some people who can't afford health care because they overspend, aren't good with their money, abuse credit cards, or whatever.  There are also people who can't afford health care because they had previous health problems, and work at a minimum wage job as a single parent raising two kids.  They're going to night school, and they're doing all they can to work they're way up the ladder, but they're not yet at a point where they can afford insurance.  The liberal mind set is that these people should be able to get help, even if means the former people get it too.  The conservative mindset seems to be the latter shouldn't get help if it means helping the former.  There seems to be this assumption of dishonesty by conservatives of anyone in a bad situation.  If they're poor, it must be because they're irresponsible.  Conservatives tend to speak about people getting away with bad behavior in this type of thing, and liberals tend to speak about the people who are doing things right but still need help.  Again, it seems to be a difference of opinion on what's the worse evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are all fascist, since the cost of most of these are almost negligible.

I believe that the federal government exists to serve one purpose; protecting the rights of the people.  That's it, that is its sole charter.  It may offer services to people as well, but it's PURPOSE is to protect the rights of those people.  There is a necessary cost for this, which we currently get through taxes.  Services designed to protect the freedom of people are, of course, legitimate.  Of the list you put up, that would be the Navy (and debatably, the police, but the Federal police only have a very limited number of duties, and most people are unlikely to even see one in their lifetimes).

Postal service is just that, a useful service.  It provides a very clear cost and benefit, and the benefit for each person well outweighs the cost.  The cost to the taxpayers for the postal system has always been almost negligible, but the benefits have been tremendous.  If that ceased to be the case, the postal system should be dropped (and we may be approaching that day soon).

Fire department, municipal police and the like should be run at the local level, coincidentally, just like they are.  In general, things should be run at the lowest level possible, to offer the greatest control and benefits to the people.  The postal service really can't be run at the state level, so it should be federal.

If a state wants to set up its own health care system, they can do that - and I can just move out of that state (or move into it if I'm poor and in need of care).  But for the federal government to do so, you'd have to prove to me:
1)  It increases or protects my freedoms
If 1 is not met:
2)  It does not curtail my freedoms
If 2 IS met:
3)  Its benefits to people on the whole outweigh its costs

I don't see that as being the case.



Shouldn't these people be able to get some sort of a protected loan, rather than a gift?  Isn't that half the point of the current, federally backed student loans?  Those loans make sense - they're an investment, with clear benefits to society, and with minimal cost.  Giving money for free to students would not make sense.  That's what we're doing with health care - giving it for free on the assumption that people won't abuse it, and might pay some of that value back.




Again, that's a mischaracterization.  I don't believe poor people are bad or stupid.  But I do believe they're responsible for their own lives.  And I certainly believe there are systems which encourage abuse, and systems which encourage proper investment.  Giving something away for free encourages abuse, so let's avoid that if we can.  Giving necessities away for free to people of working age discourages them from working, so let's avoid doing that too.  This isn't saying that a person who gets free stuff won't work or is corrupt, but it does mean that, statistically, we will have more problems if we operate that way.  I don't think saying 'this system is inefficient' is equal to saying 'damn those who are in need, it's my money'.

It seems Katisara advocates some kind of victim-blaming rationalization. That all poor people are poor because they aren't responsible enough with their money. That they brought it on themselves. At least, that's the impression I'm getting.

I can understand from a philosophical point why conservatives oppose socialist healthcare. Socialism is like the boogy man, they have nightmares about sharing with people, I get it. But I can't understand why any conservative, especially fiscal conservatives, would support our current system. It makes no sense from a fiscal standpoint. We're throwing so much money into it, so much more than the other developed nations, and getting so little out of it. Say what you want about socialism wasting money, but we actually pay per capita (that's per person) about twice as much as socialist France does for their system, and yet they still have a much greater reputation for these things. And say what you will about credit card spending and people buying more than they need, but the number one cause of bankruptcy in the states isn't maxed out credit, but medical bills. And, strangely enough, many, if not most, of the people who go bankrupt on medical bills have health insurance.

I think that sums up a lot of the problem right there. Most people have health insurance, but it isn't doing much for them. They still go into bankruptcy from medical bills, and they still aren't getting what they need. Hell, most accountants won't even look at you funny if you told them that it was medical bills that sent you into bankruptcy. It's so common, and so out of the peron's hands that most of the time, they aren't even held accountable. Sounds like they brought it on themselves, right Kati?

We're going through this right now, in fact. My mom early in the ear survived from a major car crash that most experts say should had cost her her life. Drunk driver smashed into her car, causing her to hit a tree and the car to literally flip over on it's head. She suffered spinal damage, major damage on the third  fourth, and fifth cervical vertibrae, she was put into a halo after the operation, and started physical therapy after they discovered things were going fine. Within three days, she could make it to her feet and walk even a short distance. The minute the insurance company heard that she could walk, they ordered her home, concluding that she no longer needed the care. She was miserable around the home, but she survived. However, concluding that the injury must not have been that severe, they kept witholding regular treatments, and sending her to general practicianers to assist with her needs. They never even had a case manager for her. They'd set up a recovery plan alright, but everyone they sent her to didn't do the kind of treatment she needed (literally, from their own words, we can't help you). At the same time, the company demanded she move on to the next step, even though they never even secured her a specialist in the first place. The only specialist they sent her to early on that could help her she had to stop going to, because her iinsurance no longer was covered with that particular office.

Just yesterday, my mother had another operation. It seems that the third and fifth vertibrae were recovering just fine, but the fourth hadn't made an progress since she left hospital care months ago. In addition, because her halo never got readjusted throug the process, it was malaligned. She literally was bleeding from the holes in her head. The week before, she was in agnoizing pain constantly, so much so that her vision was literally going. She tried going into emergency, but seeing as the insurance wouldn't pay for it the necessary tests and treatments, and it wasn't seen as life threatening, all they did was put her on some painkillers and sent her on her way. They refused to even wipe the blood from her holes. She returned later, and they did the same thing, this time delivering with her a written note saying not to come back without her practiioner's written aknowledgement of need for serious treatment. They had guards, armed hospital security, escort her out the building, a woman bleeding from the head that should hardly walk. We eventually took her to another hospital, roughtly half an hour's drive away. Had the first hospital simply done an x-ray, it would had been obvious that she needed help. The doctors there said that the next hit to her spine, even just against a wall, could had risked permanent paralysis. They arranged for surgery just within 24 hours of the test results.

Here's the screwed up part: She has medical insurance, and not bottom of the line stuff, good health insurance. These weren't some overpopulated, run down hospitals either. There were rarely waiting lines. They are good, accreditated hosptials. And even she can't get what she needs. And of course, that hasn't stopped the insurance company from forwarding every bill they possibly can in our direction. Did the insurance company provide the necessities? Yes, they provided the operation that saved her life. Did they ensure much more than that? Not if they could find an excuse not to. It was like the company was hoping, seriously hoping to the point of delusion, that her injuries weren't serious, that it was all a passing thing.

We give too much power to people who aren't interested in helping us, but making a buck. And it's not hleping our economy in the slightest. It's only helping the health industry. It's shoddy, and completely inefficient, which is why I can't understand a conservative supporting it. Katisara constantly rants on the inefficiency of various governmental programs, yet adamantly supports this one, despite that it's exactly every bit what he's ranting against. Why? Because it's not socialist? Are you guys really so willing to cut your nose t spite your face? Is it really the point?

If you don't want a socialist health care system, that's fine. I'm not even all that adamant about it being socialist. I just want something that works, and what we have isn't working.

But isn't such attitude exactly what makes US health care, education and welfare systems as abysmal as they are?

I will respond to Vexen's (primarily incorrect) post when I get back.  To respond to this, the problem is that whenever the subject comes up, the two sides of Congress get so caught up in how much additional coverage is offered, that neither can get together to actually fix the system even at the level of coverage it's offering.  Both sides agree the current system is inefficient, but both have so many agendas they can't get past to work on what's here NOW, nothing gets done.

And that's a legitimate position.  But it's not the only possible or reasonable position.  Some people believe the government should make the country a better place to live as well, improve the standard of living, etc.


Just for clarification, is to 2 or 3 that you think fails?



If you think a student loan will cover major medical costs, I you're confused about what they're for and what you can do with them.  Is a loan better than a gift?  In many cases, but not all.  If someone's in a car accident, does it really benefit the country if they have to forgo, say, night school in order to pay off their doctor bills?

And the last sentence is slightly in accurate.  It's not that we're assuming people won't abuse it.  We accept that some people will abuse it.  But we consider some amount of abuse an acceptable price to pay in exchange for people getting adequate health care.  Again, it's the lesser evil issue.





I know you don't believe it, but all your arguments seem to carry this kind of tacit assumption.  Its sort of like Bart's "do poor people have poor habits" question in the other thread.  Even though it's not what you really think, it comes off that way because the arguments are always "why should I pay for them" or "they're responsible for their own place in life" and the like.  Your arguments don't seem to accurately represent your feelings on this.


Again, this sounds great, if it's applied across the board.  But conservatives are only happy to apply it to poor people.  Bring up the estate tax, and trying to take away just some of a huge handout, and they get up in arms.  Like I said before, conservatives don't seem to be opposed to handouts, they just want to be able to pick who gets them.  It's okay for rich kids to get something for free, and for them not to work, but it's not okay for a poor person to get health care if they can't afford it.


Can you show that we'll have more problems if we operate "that way?"  Is that an assumption, is that documented?  And how are you defining "problems?"  Are you just looking at cases of people abusing the system, or are you also including people who can't get adequate health care despite doing all the right things as a problem?

I think Vexen's example illustrates an important point.  Insurance companies are only efficient at making money for shareholders, not at providing good health care.  Insurance companies spend much of their money on effort in trying to get someone else to pay for health care, or on screening out unhealthy people and not offering them insurance.  The insurance companies are a major inefficiency in the system, in terms of getting health care to people at a low price.

I was thinking about Vexen's story about her mom today (out of curiousity, Vexen, is your mom on state farm insurance?), and had a thought I thought I'd bounce off you guys to see if you agree:

One of the problems with the insurance industry, is that unlike other companies, they don't want repeat business from people who use their service.  In most businesses, the idea is that if you don't provide a good service, the customers won't come back, and you'll lose money by not getting that repeat business.  Insurance companies, though, would rather get rid of all the customers that actually use their service (ie, people who get ill), and keep only those people who pay for it but don't use it (ie, healthy people).  They're happy to treat you great while you're healthy and just sending in checks every month.  But once you actually need to get money for them, you're costing them money rather than earning them money, and they'd much rather be rid of you as a customer.  If you need a doctor now, you're all the more likely to need one later.  So there's not that incentive to provide a good service.  The threat of you leaving and going to another insurance company doesn't work, because they'd actually prefer that you do so.  They've already got some money out of you, and any further money they get from you is likely to be offset by money they have to pay for your health care, so driving you away isn't actually a bad thing from their perspective.  I've heard stories similar to Vexen's a number of times, not just in health insurance cases.  Once you actually try to get a large some of money from insurance companies, they seem to fight you every step of the way.  Small things they're happy to pay for, because they're still coming out ahead, and by paying the small stuff they're less likely to have to pay for something big in the future.  But the big stuff is why people actually have insurance.

So my question to you guys is this:  Where is the motivation for insurance companies to treat their customers well, and provide high quality health care, in cases when the customer is actually costing them money?  Isn't a private insurance company's goal in direct conflict with the customer's goals, in that the company wants to avoid paying the customer more than the customer pays them, but the customer buys insurance for just such situations?  Does an insurance company have any motivation to treat a customer well once they've become a net loss of money?

Vexen, I don't know if you actually read my posts.  If I'm reading you correctly, however, you are prejudiced against people holding this position, and there's little I can say to change your mind.

I've never said that all poor people aren't responsible with their money.  I've never said the current system is any good, either.  What I'm saying is that moving the responsibility to the government is a poor idea, and will result in people like your mother (I do hope she starts getting the care she needs, of course) still suffering, just from a different set of problems.  Instead of only getting the care she 'needs', but getting quality treatment in those cases, she'd get all the appointments she needs, but shabby care in every instance, assuming she can get the appointments at all.  I suspect your mother would complain just as much (and rightly so) if she was told she'd have to wait 9 months for her next check-up.  She might as well not have an appointment at all at that rate.




Then I recommend those people move to a country where the constitution or charter there supports that.  They quite outnumber those like the US.  Or, alternatively, they can move to a state that supports that, since that's the idea behind the system we have now.  Maryland seems to feel similarly, the government should improve your standard of living.  West Virginia seems to be a lot mroe hands off.  So if you want that sort of service, move to Maryland.  If you don't, move to West Virginia.  That way we can both be happy (and, coincidentally, tolerant).  I don't feel this current mindset of 'well they do it there so we should do it here too' is tolerant, in that it means that people like me who think the way they do it there have no where to live.  There is no nation in the world, with the possible exception of New Zealand, from what I've read, which embraces independence, freedom and personal responsibility as much as the US.  What am I supposed to do, fly to the moon?



I think the proposed system fails at number 2, because its financial cost is simply too high, and that impacts the freedoms of whoever is paying that cost, and number 3 fails because the likely costs, financially and the human factor, will outweigh the benefits.  It isn't the best solution.




That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying we currently have student loans available, primarily through the federal government.  Why don't we have medical loans?  All in all, they oftentimes cost about the same, they both are required to allow people to become productive.  Imagine a system where you apply for a loan with a fixed rate barely above inflation, and you don't have to pay it back for say four years after you take it out.



If the person is in night school, and is suffering as much as Vexen's mom is, she's not going to night school any more.

And ultimately, there's nothing stopping you from taking two loans.  You'll be working very hard, but no one said there isn't a lot of work involved with life.  Worst case, you default on the loan, the government is back to where it was if it had given you the medical care for free, and you 'pay' for it by the difficulties involved with bankrupcy (which is where you would have been anyway if you hadn't accepted the loan - except now you went bankrupt AFTER all your medical care is taken care of).  Everyone comes out better than they would have otherwise, but no one gets a complete free ride.  It's cooperation.



I will say, I believe that most people can get out of poverty if they're willing to sacrifice.  If they're willing to pull two jobs, to forego cable television and vacations, to put off children, you can do it.  There have been experiments to show this, where people with no credentials and no money pulled themselves up by their bootstraps by their own hard work.  And ultimately, THAT is the American Dream, that any person can advance (or drop).  There are exceptions, and sometimes you do everything right and just get a bad roll of the dice.  But ultimately, how many poor people do you know who work 12 or 16 hours, who sit down and manage their budgets, who cut luxury spending?  Until you've made that sacrifice, and kept making it continually for years, you, as a poor person, have little right to complain the system isn't fair.



That's because that's the government telling me I can't give my money to who I want, it's telling me I can't build something for my children.  I personally don't have much feelings on the estate tax one way or another, but I think there's merit to my saying the government has no right to stand between me and preparing for my children.



It would be almost impossible to statistically show such a thing, as well you know.  We're talking about economics, there's no statistical proof for even things we accept as givens (like spending more money leads to inflation).  If we had a way to test how many people are taking advantage of the system, or aren't working because they're getting free stuff, then we'd know precisely who to take off of it, wouldn't we?  When we are talking about economics, we need to build off of logical statements.  I think it's a reasonable logical statement to say that if a person can get something for free, he's unlikely to work for it, however if someone is told to pay for someone else who isn't working, he's likely to despise that, and will work to get out of that relationship, that if a person's work isn't judged by its quality, he will have no incentive to provide quality work.



The current system doesn't work because it's not open to market pressures.  How would *I* fix it?

1)  Standardize terminology and plans, make it easy to understand.  Do you know what a PPP is or what the alternative plan is?  Because I don't.  As a buyer, this stuff is too confusing.  That needs to be eliminated.  Standard, common-sense terminology as a requirement, just like we require ingredients on our food.
2)  Require a standardized statement of benefits and how you receive them, again, like we put our ingredients on your food.

Now you know what you're buying, and you can compare one plan to another without spending a full day doing it.

3)  Reduce barriers to entering the market.  The more plans we have competing, the more pressure the plans will have to play according to the rules.
4)  Make it easy to sign up for health insurance.  For instance, require that health insurance plans be able to give you a sign-on quote over the phone or internet, and that they can't alter it by more than 10% either direction, excepting if you withheld information (sort of like how auto mechanics work).  This allows you to investigate multiple companies over a short time.
5)  Promote ratings systems.  Allow customers to express their pleasure or dissatisfaction.  Focus especially on those like Vexen's mother.  This is the absolutely critical part.  If Green Cross Insurance throws out all its customers, this needs to be publicized.  Perhaps require these ratings be sent with the price quote.
6) (Optional) Take two of these private companies, set up a plan to cover preventative medicine and emergency room care (or whatever is appropriate), and say the government is footing the bill for each person who signs up.  This is your public health care.
7) (Optional) Create a government-run system that people pay into normally.  This creates a baseline against which everyone else must compete.  No one will do worse overall than this or they'll go out of business.

Now you have a diversity of plans, some offer bare-bones, only medical emergencies, some offer terrible service, but at a great cost, some offer terrific service but are very expensive.  But ultimately, when I'm signing up, I'm signing up knowing exatly what sort of service I can expect.  If I'm looking for good service, the company must get its current customers to agree that the service I'm offering is good in order to win my business.  This takes the focus off repeat business, and puts it on new customers, which is what the insurance company is really greated towards.

I personally wouldn't have much problem if it was handled at the state level, though it'd likely be less efficient to have X variations of it, and complications such as people living in a state with universal health care vacationing in a state without and needing an immediate hospital visit.  Not an insurmountable problem, but it'd be a bit more complicated.  Like I said, I'd be okay with that.  My question, though, is does the argument really change just because it's at state level?  What if all 50 states adopted that system independently, would you then feel it's okay?  Is it not okay for a government to do 'X' if there's not somewhere that you could moved to that offers 'not X'?  The point about the constitution is valid, but what if the people elect officials who make an amendment that specifically lets them set up a health care system?  Would that be acceptable?


Okay, what cost/benefit level would be acceptable to you?  And what level of costs would be acceptable to you in terms of passing the infringing freedoms test?  Just looking for ball park figures here, as clearly anything more specific would be pure speculation.  For example, I assume you'd be okay with if it everyone got free, high-quality health care, and it cost each tax payer 10 dollars a year.  But probably wouldn't support it if it cost everyone $20k a year.  Where's a suitable tipping point?  $1000/year on average?  $100?  $2000?  $5000?  Roughly speaking, what would cost would be acceptable?


I wouldn't be opposed to such a system.  I don't think it's a cure-all, but I don't have any objection to it.  Out of curiosity, do you consider government-backed student loans to be a violation of your freedoms, since it's costing you tax money for the government to provide them?  Do you consider it a violation of the consitution?



Perhaps, but surely you can imagine cases where a person suffers an injury through no fault of their own which costs lots of money to treat, and could be forced to choose between paying off their loan, or getting an education or otherwise improving their ability to contribute to the economy.


Well, in many cases there is something stopping people from taking out more loans.  People don't like to loan money to people that aren't likely to pay it back.  I'm also pretty sure that even if you go bankrupt, you don't get out of your federal student loans.  If I recall correctly, the student loans I got also required a co-signer, so even if I went bankrupt, whoever cosigned for me was still on the hook for them.  Those might not have been the federal ones, though, I don't recall perfectly.




Which is fair enough, but it's still at odds with the "no hands outs" ideology that is used to argue against these programs.  Like I said, it's not an opposition to hand outs, it's just wanting to pick who gets them.  You're okay with people getting hand outs, you just don't want to be forced to give them.  I'm not trying to say that's not a legitimate position, I just wish people who hold it would make it more clear that that's their position, rather than focussing on the "no free rides!" aspect.  Like I said before, it really comes down to a "don't take what's mine" position, which is a legitimate position, but it's often portrayed as something else, such as a "no handouts" position or a "you have to earn it" position, which clearly really isn't the motivator of people who fight to be able to give their kids huge handouts.


The thing is, though, you get other things from working.  Very, very few people are content with the bear minimum, and will work to get more, even if they're given something for free.  No matter how much people have, they tend to want more, and very much don't want to have to settle for less.  These, I would argue, are the real motivators for work.  It's not just about meeting your basic needs, it's about getting more than you currently have. The last sentence above I'm a bit confused about.  What part of the system wouldn't be judged by it's quality?  I don't think anyone is opposed to merit-based pay for doctors, even within a univeral coverage scheme.



Sounds good by me.


These work for me too, though the major barrier to entering the market, I would say, is the huge amount of capital needed.  I'm not sure how to fix that problem.


Why keep the middle man of the insurance companies in this case?  Why not send the bills direct to the government?  What are the insurance companies adding in this situation?


This works for me, but it's still a "health care is a luxury" model, since people who can't afford it, won't get it.


I'm all for the more information angle.

I think it highly unlikely that all 50 states would adopt such a plan, however it's quite reasonable that all the states I'd care to live in would.  I currently live in such a state, however, and my arguments against the local plan are very different than those against the federal level (mostly about effective administration, rather than whether the system should exist at all.  I already accept I've been outvoted.  Maybe one day I'll vote with my feet, maybe not.)

However, yes, I think it would be rather unjust to remove any option for people who don't feel they want to be part of such a scheme.



I think we can agree there have been amendments that contradict the Bill of Rights and so on.  Just because it's added to the Constitution doesn't mean it's constitutional (in the spirit of things, obviously it literally is).  If they added an amendment saying all people will have 666 stamped on their foreheads, I wouldn't accept that either.



If it cost EVERY tax payer something?  Well that steals some of my thunder, because we know under the current system some tax payers pay a lot more than others.

Ultimately though, we can reduce this to basic finances.  Odds of needing such care * value of such care gives us a precise number.  On the flip side, we have the cost 'per' taxpayer.  If it were a flat tax, this would give us a clear cost/benefit analysis, and we could say for certain 'well, it costs $1,000 to get into the system, but it's effectively saving you $1,500'.  That would make sense.  However, it'll be a progressive (code word for socialist ;P) tax, so some people will be paying $0, and some people will be paying $20,000, but everyone would be getting $1,500 of value from it.  At that point it starts to be a little unfair, and how unfair depends on how much pressure is put on people.  If we have one guy responsible for paying $10M, and everyone else pays $1, that's unfair even though I'm probably not that one guy.  Saying he's rich and therefore he can spare it isn't a valid argument.  Someone may have a lot of kids, but that doesn't mean he has any extra, or he may have a big house but he won't appreciate your letting random people sleep in one of his bedrooms.

How do we calculate the cost to these people?  That's pretty tough.  How do we translate the value of $1,000 to someone who earns $55k/year to the value of $1,000 to someone who earns $550k/year?  If we figured that out, we'd have a method of determining what's a good value.



No, because the government makes the money back with interest, so no money is really lost, nor, hopefully, is any gained.  On the books, in theory, it would be a zero, almost zero cost (only the cost of administration), but it has a clear benefit.



Depends on how the seed money is acquired.  It isn't a service that's explicitly supported by the constitution, but I don't think it's explicitly disallowed either.



Assuming we have a character who simultaneously is of limited income, suffers an injury through no fault of his own, but is unable to find legal recourse for such a thing, didn't have the foresight for appropriate insurance, or the insurance cheated him somehow or isn't providing services, the fellow is honestly trying to better himself through education and doesn't qualify for any other form of financial aid, loans from family, etc. then yes, this person is the unlucky fringe case who owes a lot of money.  But at least he has reasonable options, can still make a difference, and maybe he can't afford night school now, but in six or eight years, he can take a whack at it again.  No one said life is fair, and it's certainly not easy.

At the same time, I think someone who did go through that would have proven he has a lot of very hireable qualities (assuming he's not majoring in Greek or something, which sort of makes him not very hireable any more.  Do we actually offer federal student loans for Greek majors?)



That's why the federal government offers them.  What does a college freshman possibly have that would make a private business interested in offering him a loan?  Generally nothing.  That's what Fannie Mae is for.



My wife had a fannie mae loan (which we paid off, so I don't remember any of that).  No idea about the co-signer either.  Although in truth, a person who has no money has no money.  There's really no other way out of it.  The gummint isn't going to throw you in jail (or shouldn't, under what I'm suggesting) for that because there's no benefit for that.  If the federal government does feel repayment is absolutely necessary, it seems the best idea would be to require 'community service' - either as a normal federal employee getting some of his pay docked (or not), or doing some other good work for the community.  If the guy can't get a job anyway, that's a plus for him, a plus for me, the taxpayer, a plus for the government.



Let me say, I don't think anyone is against the government giving out hand-outs per se.  What they're against is the government using taxpayer money to give out hand-outs.  So it isn't that conservatives want to limit who gives hand-outs, but rather, who is required to pay for them.  If they're paying for them, they want a say in that.  I think that's fair.  Your phraseology is like how Heath (I believe it's Heath) made some statement about liberals wanting more taxes, and you corrected him saying that's not their goal, but how they do it.  Conservatives don't want to stop hand-outs, but they want control over their money.  If congress-people set up their own hand-outs from their salary using the gov't as a vehicle, no one would complain.

So it's not even 'don't take what's mine' but, if you must take what's mine, I want a say in how it's used, and I want to make sure it's used appropriately.



You did go to college, right?  Did you live on campus?  Meet college students?  Who was more productive, those who were paying their own way in loans or out of pocket, or those who were getting their tuition paid by someone else?  Which group was more likely to get a job and which was more likely to play beer pong?

In my experience, that group is definitely not 'very, very few', it's a significant number which gets larger every year.

Heck, just speaking for myself, basically my entire paycheck goes into shelter, food, clothes, medical costs, costs associated with going to work and soon will include education costs for my children.  I don't have cable because I can't afford it.  I brew my own beer because I can't afford to buy beer.  I have a computer I can't use because I don't have the space in my budget for a used monitor for it.  I'm going to stop driving to my gaming group because gas is too expensive.  I have as of yet to buy a television.

If you told me I could keep all of the things I listed and not have to spend 50 hours a week associated with going to work, I'd say sure!  If all of my costs were covered, I would make more money begging on the street than I would going into the office.  I know this is anecdotal, since there's only one of me, but yes, if you told me all of my basic needs and my children's education would be covered, I would quit my job in a heartbeat.



The current system doesn't pay by quality, I suspect anything new we put up wouldn't either.




#6 (the gov't footing the bill) is the difference between 'health care is a luxury' and 'health care is a right'.  If you think it's a right, you take #6 (as well as probably #7, since the gov't can let people into the plan for free, or reduced costs, as appropriate).  If you think it's a luxury, you don't do those two (or require they still charge).  If you think it's a right which must be protected from abuse, you allow them to do community service instead of paying cash.

Just as aside on the student loans, co-signers aren't always necessary, though parents can take out loans. you can not file bankrupcy on them and defaulting on them is fairly serious. The only way to get rid of such a debt is death. (they don't impose the loans upon your family) I had to take out loans for school and read all the fine print. Taking Master's courses I had to again and the information is correct as of 2005, though it could have changed. And loans are available for any college major. Although extra incentives are offered for specific careers.

*** Would you support a socialised health-care program you could opt out of? I mean, if you're just wanting the government to stay out of your business, I would say that's absolutely your right, and no one should infringe on it. But what about those of us who're okay with a little interference? So we make a program that people who want can opt into, and people who don't want can opt out of. Sound good?


*** Well, that would explain why I'm in favour of it ....


*** You consider the cost of the military to be "almost negligible"?


*** Do you have any basis for this belief?


*** Okay, so what costs do you think there are that aren't outweighed by the benefits? Also, on the subject of #1 there, what about freedom from illness?


*** Okay, so why not bring back indentured servitude? I'm not being at all faceitious (sp?); I really think we ought to.


*** I must've missed something. How do we know it would be "shabby care"?


*** So then your position would be that anything not explicitly disallowed by the Constitution is acceptable?

Most likely, yes, I'd support that, assuming your opting in or out truly had little or no interference on me.  The problem is, if we did that, the people who would opt in are those who can't afford (or don't want to spend money on) health insurance, and those that would opt out would be those who have the money for the nice health insurance, so it wouldn't exactly be much of an improvement.




Hardly, but for instance, the cost of student loans should be, in theory, almost negligible.  The amount of money we pay on say NASA or NOAA is very, very little, per person.  The military is a different discussion.  Having SOME military is necessary, since we need to be able to defend our nation against invaders, but having a military large enough to conquer and hold other nations isn't just unnecessary, but it's dangerous.  Is there a reason our military is bigger than all the other militaries of the world combined?  Because I can't see any.  And you as a taxpayer shouldn't have to pay into that.  But if you try to stop, people with guns break into your house, take your stuff and toss you in jail.  That's just as bad as forcing people into paying for someone else's hospital stay without your having in any say in the matter.



Only the Constitution.



I don't believe we have, or should expect, a freedom from illness.  Should I expect a freedom from hardship?  From chance?  That's ridiculous.

What makes it a bad deal?  If I pay $2,000 for $1,000 in service, that's a bad deal.  If I pay $2,000 for someone else to get $1,000 in service that's a REALLY bad deal.



If protected from abuse, it's an option.  To a degree we already do it in some places.  The government right now will pay your college tuition in exchange for four years of military service.  I wouldn't mind the government offering to pay for your medical treatment in exchange for a few years of civil service.  From what I understand, initially welfare under FDR was that; the fed gives you a job and that's how you make that 'free money'.  I don't know why we dropped it.  To do otherwise encourages abuse.



Firstly from all the reports we've been seeing from people in nations with socialized health care reporting that there are long lines and poor accountability.  Secondly, in any system where performance is not properly incentivized, most people will provide poor service, and most social health care programs around do not appropriately incentivize good performance.



I don't think we should get into that in this thread.  Technically, the Constitution already says the federal government has no power beyond those outlined in the constitution, so they don't have any powers not in the Constitution.  However, the Fed Gov't can offer certain services, like USPS.  But to go into the specifics of why one and not the other is probably a conversation all of its own.

Secondly, in any system where performance is not properly incentivized, most people will provide poor service, and most social health care programs around do not appropriately incentivize good performance.

People who choose to devote their lives to medicine tend to have motivations above desire for money.

I don't believe we have, or should expect, a freedom from illness.

Do we have a right to life?

The number of people who have the time, intelligence and money to invest in becoming a doctor are few, and many of them are already being pulled into quite a number of other areas which are already suffering a serious lack of manpower.



The two are not equivalent.

The number of people who have the time, intelligence and money to invest in becoming a doctor are few, and many of them are already being pulled into quite a number of other areas which are already suffering a serious lack of manpower.

This is just as true in the US as it is in Canada. A person who's smart enough to become a doctor is also smart enough to qualify for any number of other professions, many of which have a greater salary potential than being a doctor.

The two are not equivalent.

Rights that aren't protected can't be said to exist in any meaningful way.

And from what I understand, medical service is better in the US as a consequence.



That's correct, but the US government is built on the idea that the government doesn't have to enforce your rights for and against you, that it only enables you to enforce your own rights.  In the US we believe each person has a right to own a gun, but the government doesn't go out and buy people guns (although I'd really like it if they did...) nor restrict those with money for guns to buy guns for other people.

Really, this line of thought seems quite odd.  I don't see how an organization acknowledging you have basic human rights means that organization is somehow obliged to take the burden off of you for enforcing those rights.

And from what I understand, medical service is better in the US as a consequence.

I'm not quite sure how this relates to my statement. I was merely pointing out that people become doctors for reasons other than money in both of our countries.

Really, this line of thought seems quite odd.  I don't see how an organization acknowledging you have basic human rights means that organization is somehow obliged to take the burden off of you for enforcing those rights.

If I'm a small and weak person, a strong man with a gun could very easily deprive me of my right to freedom, speech and/or life. That's why we need a police force. I view doctors along the same lines. Society needs to provide medical care to people who can't afford it themselves.

What I'm saying is depending on people having THAT MUCH generosity in their hearts is asking for a precious resource to be strained.



This is a great example, actually.

The US Federal government actually has very few police forces, and almost all of them are dedicated to protecting federal assets against people like you (i.e. - not federal assets).  For example, there's the Mint Police, Secret Service (whose primary job has been cracking down on counterfeit money), Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, who are charged with making sure people pay taxes on those things and so on.  The only real exception is the FBI, who of course are late-comers to the game, and who still only enforce a handful of laws.  You can't call some number for the FBI to come to your house and protect you (unless by 'protect you' you mean 'surround your house and shoot at you'.  That can be arranged.)  However, no one can argue the federal government doesn't believe in freedom, speech or life.

On the flip side, the state, county and town DO provide police forces, as a service and to enforce the rules of that particular area.  Most states, counties and townships do NOT include a provision saying they will guarantee your freedom, speech or life.  They are simply providing a service.  In times past, some such services were subscription based, although now for ease of use they've generally made it based on geographic region.  If Maryland really wanted to protect more peoples' life and so on, they'd have an agreement with West Virginia, who don't have as many police per capita, and provide protection there as well.  But of course Maryland doesn't, largely because West Virginia is chock full of people who refuse to pay the 'subscription fee' in the form of Maryland state taxes.


So yes, the federal government recognizes your right to life, freedom, good health, etc.  The federal government, however, is under no means constrained to defend such things on your behalf, except in the particular forms it has already been bound to defend (creation of a navy, creating a dependable currency, etc.)

This is true.  But keep in mind that it's also how our current system works.  Some people (ie, healthy people) pay lots of money but get nothing out of it, unhealthy people pay the same amount, and get lots out.  Any kind of health care is going to be a case of some people paying for others.  Also keep in mind that in the current system, the rich are already paying way more for it than the poor are.  It's just that the poor get nothing (and pay nothing) in the current case.


I'm pretty sure it was you who brought up that there's nothing in the constitution about things being fair. ;)  More seriously, though, taxes, by their very nature are unfair.  Even a flat tax is unfair, in the sense that rich people still pay more for the same services (even it's the same percentage of their income as poor people are paying).


I think you need to take into acount that a rich person probably values their health (in dollar terms) than a poor person does.  If you're making $550k/year, you're probably willing to pay much more for your health than someone who's making $55k/year.  $20k for an elective operation?  May seem reasonable if you're making $550k/year, but perhaps not if you're making $55k/year.

I agree that determining how much is 'reasonble' is a non-trivial problem, but I think not imposssible.  Say it costs on average $3k/year for good health care (I'm taking this number out of the air, but I think it's more than the current amount spent per person in the US, which is already higher than anywhere else in the world--even places with socialized medicine).  If the 'average' person is taking in, say, $30k/year (again, just making guesses here, trying to be conservative with them), that's 10% of income devoted to health care.  Would a 10% of income tax be fair, do you think?  Would 5%?

This is in terms of a flat tax, and you're right that it'd more likely be a progressive tax.  Are progressive taxes, in your view, always unfair, or are they ever appropriate?  If it's always unfair, that might be more the issue than the health care itself.





I thought everything not explicitly listed was said to be forbidden.  Whatever the case, though, you're okay with student loans, which is the point.  The benefit outweighs the costs, so it's okay.  If the benefit of socialized health care outweighs the cost, then it seems like that should be on the table too, is my point.


Okay, this highlights my point very well.  This is a situation that no one wants, but you're willing to tolerate.  A good person doing the right thing, but slipping through the cracks.  Unfortunate, but them's the breaks some times.  Alternatively, people in favor of socialized health care say "no, we don't want this person to slip through the cracks.  We should do what we need to help them work their way up."  When conservatives say "but that will let other people get a free ride!" they reply "well, them's the breaks.  We can tolerate that unwanted situation."  Those in favor of the socialized health care don't want anyone who's doing everything right to get left behind because of a bad roll of the dice, and they're willing to let some people who aren't doing everything right to take advantage of the system, if that's the only way to make it work.  Those opposed want to make sure no one abuses the system and gets something they don't deserve, and they're willing to let a few good people doing the right thing to fall by the wayside from time to time if that's what it takes to make sure no one abuses the system.


I think it's a valid point, too.  But what I'm trying to say is that even though that's their motivation, they tend to phrase their arguments as if they're oppose to any and all handouts, fullstop.  They tend to say things like "if you give people handouts, they won't work for it!"  And then they turn around and pay for their child's college tuition, indicating they don't actually believe what they've just argued.


Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.  They don't actually want to stop handouts, even though they speak as if they do whenever these things come up.  I don't think we have to scroll very far up this thread to find examples of this.  They don't actually want to stop handouts, as you say, but they speak as if they do.


Which is a valid point.  Now if we can just get people to phrase it that way!


Yes, I did go to college, did live on campus, and did meet plenty of students.  Granted, it was a small, private school in a rural area, so my experience might not be representative.  But I didn't notice any strong correlation between productivity and paying/being paid for.  Productivity seemed more an issue of what social group/other interests people had.  Even more than that, though, I didn't see much correlation at all between productivity and job-getting.  When I look through the alumni magazine these days, and see who's doing what, I'm over-and-over-again flabergasted at who's become a doctor or lawyer or state representative, or whatever.  I keep thinking "That guy?! you've got to be kidding me!"  My friends who paid for college don't seem to be doing any better or worse, on average, than those who had it paid for by their parents.  Like I said, I'm not sure my experience was representative, but from what I saw, it was more an issue of personality type than who was paying that determined people's productivity, and something else entirely (I'm not sure what) that determined what kind of job they ended up in.


Yes, if I told you you could keep all that without working, surely you'd quit.  But what if I told you you could keep 75% of it?  No beer at all, say, no gaming group, no driving, and no TV.  You can keep your house and your food, but your kids have to go to public school, and you'd give up health insurance?  Now, you'd still be doing better than a lot of people, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be worth it to you.

Similarly, even if you could get all you have right now without working, if someone then said: you can keep all you have, but if you come back to work, I'll give you another $10k/year spending money, I'm guessing you'd take them up on it.

The trick is just making sure that people who are working don't end up worse or the same as people who aren't.  If you're getting free stuff from the government because you're poor, but loose it all if you start working, then you won't have much motivation to work.  If you get to keep it all, and keep what you earn from working, then you'll most likely work.  We can provide a safety net without removing all incentive.  The trick is keeping the safety net in place until you really, really don't need it.



Fair enough, but that's not really much of an argument against any new system.


The community service instead of paying cash isn't a bad idea.  I could support that type of system.

Saw this today, and thought it might interest people here:
http://campaignstops.blogs.nyt...dex.html?ref=opinion

If you're talking about health insurance, that isn't precisely true.  I have health insurance for the same reason my bank buys derivatives; the reduction of risk alone is of value.  However, if I'm paying into a system that gives that assurance to someone else, then all I'm getting is based off of my relationship to that person.



Barring the fact that income taxes are not actually permitted under the original Constitution...

Yes, to a degree taxes are inherently unfair.  They're taking someone's property against his will, and there's few exceptions where that can be completely fair.  However, there are limits to that, where it goes from simply being an unfair inconvenience, to really being unethical.  Where that line is is of course very difficult to decide and set down, but I think in general we all want to shy away from that line as much as possible.



Progressive taxes have their merit.  As you pointed out, a lot of it is based off of disposable income as well.  If I am just barely living within my means, buying only essentials, I cannot spare an additional 10%, whereas if I am living well below my means, buying only essentials, 10% off my paycheck is a nuisance, but not going to kill me.



I'd have to double check, but I believe the government can issue loans at whatever interest rate it pleases.  That's all a student loan is.



I would say it's 'on the table', in that we're discussing it.  However, my paying for some poor guy to get free medical care is not a clear issue of costs outweighing the benefits.  This is why I brought up the idea of medical loans in the first place; since many people complain the problem with socialized health care is the cost, by taking the cost off of involuntary tax-payers and instead putting it back on the person receiving services, it 'eliminates' the cost on the system.



Keep in mind, I also believe there are other sources beyond the government for aid.  There's nothing stopping a person from taking two loans, getting help from his church, getting help from his family, etc.



Because we all know how many elected officials are going to take a paycut for all of the money they're giving away.  The argument is 'no handouts' because they already know THEY will be the ones paying for it, and there's no way out of that.



Now that I have kids, yeah, but before and after kids, I'd probably forego the nice things, or work a little bit to get things like a computer, then be a bum.  So that's about 25 years of work, more or less, to get the kids through school.  Or I'd just move to a nicer area, where the kids can go to a really top-notch public school and only work 8 years.  That would rock.

(My post is a little absent-minded, someone is watching over my shoulder, eager for the one home computer.  *sigh*  May post more later!)

*** Actually, it's not. China has a larger military than the U.S. Ours is just better.


*** Really? I've read the thing, a couple of times, and I'm curious as to where you find that bit of info.


*** Why? I mean, this is (difficult as it is to believe) the 21st Century. And okay, I don't have my jetcar or personal robot servant, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable, in 21st Century America, to expect freedom from illness. No, you're right in that there is always chance, but apart from that, why should any American in this day and time NOT be free from illness.


*** So becos others have done it badly, that automatically means we will?


*** So we have a right to be alive, just a horrible, miserable, sickly kind of life. Right.


*** Unless you're a felon. Becos once someone commits a crime, they're obviously not allowed the same rights as everyone else, regardless of what restitution they may make.


*** Becos it's that organisation's JOB?


*** Unless you're speaking of the U.S. government, in which case they don't give a flip about those things. Just ask any of their guests in Gitmo.


*** Um, isn't that why we pay taxes and such?

That simply put is not true. That happens sometimes, but the list of countries that have successfully dealt with the issue is by no means short. These include Canada, Japan, Sweden, Spain, Ireland and even Cuba.

By the same token every government agency or public service would be utterly corrupt.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:02, Tue 29 Apr 2008.

Well, I hesitate to say this, but I (for one) to believe that.  Having been homeless, lived in a shelter, etc., I can say that most people in that situation did bring it on themselves in one way or another.  Whether it's because they have a famine/feast mentality and aren't fiscally conservative . . . well, that's a major reason right there.  Then there's the mental and/or physical addictions that undermine a persons's ability to care for themselves, most of which a person chooses to take up.

To go onto something of a tangent here, alcoholism can be hideously damaging, but in the vast majority of cases nobody ever holds a person down and forces them to drink, drink, drink until they become an alcoholic.  People become alcoholics because, in my opinion, they choose to engage in a potentially risky activity "for the fun of it".  That's like purposefully driving without a seatbelt just to get a rush -- it's not very smart.  Sure, most people drink responsibly, more or less.  But why drink at all?  To lossen up innate barriers, to "let yourself go"?  How responsible is that?

Ok, to get back to "bringing it on yourself".  In my case, I did bring it on myself.  I choose to move to a busy city with a great economy with no means of supporting myself (at the time I moved) in the hopes of being able to find work, save up, get a place to stay, etc.  It took eight months of living homeless, sometimes in shelters, getting up at 4:00am, walking a few miles to temporary staffing centers (you had to get there early enough that the busses weren't running yet), applying to virtually every business in the area whose qualifications I met and a lot whose qualifications I didn't meet, etc., before I could finally save up enough to get an apartment.  And I was darn lucky (actually, I was blessed) to find some good jobs to transition between.  For instance, I put on commercial copper roofing in the middle of winter.  Sliding around on slick surfaces (icy copper is darn slick), bracing myself against my harness to get some leverage to crimp the copper while hundreds of feet above the ground, but it paid $10/hour.


"It's a good thing the same thing never happens in Canada with their socialized medicine," Bart said, tongue-in-cheek.  Do you know how many people on both sides of the US/Canadian border have similar stories?  Just because your health care provider is the government doesn't mean that nobody ever has problems, that nobody ever falls through the cracks, etc.

Ok, the Canadian government pays and gets you treated quickly if you can prove that your illness is life threatening.  But, that's pretty much the situation that your mother was in.  She hadn't proved, to the insurance company's satisfaction, that her illness was indeed life threatening and I've heard similar stories from people in Canada.

That being said, what company was this with so I can spread the story and help prevent other people signing up with them?  See, that's the major advantage of privatized medicine, you can "reward" insurance companies with positive or negative word of mouth advertising (as appropriate).  With socialized medicine, you're pretty much stuck with whatever you get, it's rather difficult to go to a different company or go to a different hospital for a second opinion and be reimbursed for it later on.

We give too much power to people who aren't interested in helping us, but making a buck. And it's not hleping our economy in the slightest. It's only helping the health industry. It's shoddy, and completely inefficient, which is why I can't understand a conservative supporting it. Katisara constantly rants on the inefficiency of various governmental programs, yet adamantly supports this one, despite that it's exactly every bit what he's ranting against. Why? Because it's not socialist? Are you guys really so willing to cut your nose t spite your face? Is it really the point?

If you don't want a socialist health care system, that's fine. I'm not even all that adamant about it being socialist. I just want something that works, and what we have isn't working.
</quote>

[[Edit: please ignore spelling/grammar problems in this post, it was written far too quickly.]]

Because that's impossible.  There are three main reasons why illnesses will never be removed from the face of the earth, barring godly intervention or something of the sort:
1) diseases mutate
2) animals cannot be controlled
3) people are stupid

1. The common cold is the prime example.  It's impossible to create an effective vaccination for it because it mutates so readily and there are so many, many different variations it.  Major illnesses that are far less often transmitted, like the flu, still require a different vaccine every year.

2. Many diseases are communicable between animals and humans.  Bird flu, for instance.  Lyme disease is a prime example here.  It's primarily spread by deer tics and deer (who are the main carriers of the disease) aren't really bothered by the disease like humans are.  So unless we could somehow vaccinate all the millions of wild deer and all the other animals that the tics feed on (they primarily feed on deer, but that's not their only possible food source) there's no way to destroy Lyme disease.  Plus, it's kind of like AIDS, we don't have a vaccine for it.  We have a combination of antibiotics which, if taken soon enough, can combine together to knock out enough of the disease in a person that the symptoms of it will generally (in most people) be negligible.  Which leads me to the third point.

3. People are stupid (they make diseases worse, etc.)  A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I wasn't feeling well, that I had a bit of a scratchy throat and might be coming down with something over the next week.  A coworker pulled some antibiotics out of his pocket and offered some to me!  Things like this is what created MRSA http://www.news-medical.net/?id=37026  which, as you can read, is one of the types of common diseases that are resistant to pretty much everything we can throw at it.  Killing it requires such strong measures that we about sometimes kill the human carriers in an attempt to save their life (well, there's no "about" about it, sometimes despite everything we can do the person dies).

I don't mean to belittle you, but it's pretty much a fantasy to ever believe that the world will be disease free.

"But what about smallpox?"  Well . . .
1) Smallpox makes people ugly and so we're willing to throw millions at it to make the ugliness go away.

2) Animals don't really get smallpox, so it's pretty much only communicable through humans, pretty much.  That's huge, right there, it's the major reason that we were able to destroy smallpox.  There's no possible way to stop bird flu.

3. The smallpox virus mutates extremely slowly, so we were able to create a really good vaccine for smallpox . . . and we didn't really create it, in the sense of creating something entirely new, we just copied the cowpox virus and manufactured a vaccine directly from the natural immunization program that nature had already created.  Most diseases mutate more quickly and there's no known natural cure.

That's why we were able to destroy smallpox and even with those advantages, it took years and millions and millions of dollars.

Can diseases in this civilized world be dampened, their effect lessened?  Of course, the world as a whole has great medical resources.  Can we make all disease go away?  Not a chance.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:10, Wed 30 Apr 2008.

     <nods> I stand corrected. What I should have said was "free from serious illness". I'm not concerned with a cure for colds, becos people rarely die from that (tho' I've sometimes wished to ...). But major illnesses, things like Cancer, AIDS, Leukemia ... maybe I mean to say "free from disease"?

Bart, out of curiosity, if you had gotten a serious illness when you were homeless, would you have considered it the best thing for the country to just let you go without care?  Do you think the US would be better off treating you, so that you could continue to do the hard work, put in the hours, and work your way out of that situation?  If you had gotten hit by a bus, say, and couldn't do any work for months, should the government have left you to starve, or would it have been within their best interests to help you while you were laid low?

In regards to number of people they're larger, not in regards to dollars spent.



10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, if the Constitution has not explicitly said the Federal Government has a certain power, it does NOT HAVE that power.

Now go back and read the preceding 9 amendments and the Declaration of Independence (as well as the Federalist, if you have the time).  Every one of those documents describes solely the protection of people from the enroaching power of a federal government, of limits on government, and of the powers of government largely against itself and a select number of services offered to people in order to protect their freedom (printing money, a court system, a navy).




As Bart said, it really is unreasonable.  Not only is it unreasonable, but it's unhealthy.  To never be exposed to illness results in a myriad of other negative health effects.

You've since corrected yourself, to never be exposed to serious illness.  Well that comes with a price.  We COULD eliminate AIDS in the US relatively easily; through the mandatory testing of the entire US population (or at least the majority) and consequent sterilization or ejection of infected individuals.  Unfortunately, there is no other technology currently available to end AIDS.  So, is that a course you'd support?  I suspect not.



To not learn from the mistakes of others is foolishness.



We have a right to a life that is a product of our fortunes and choices.  Remember, this isn't a right given by the government, we're discussing the natural rights of every human being, American or not.  Even if there is no government, we would have a right to life.  But part of that natural right is the fact that life is not easy, it is not guaranteed, and it is not naturally completely comfortable.  So yes, we have a right to life, in all its beauty and terror, and the government, not just the US government but ANY government, steps beyond its bounds if it means to forcibly restrict us from that.

If a government offers a service to modify that right to life, and we voluntarily accept, that is okay, but that isn't the same as a right to life.



That's a strong point, but for a different debate.



How is that the government's job?  Because it's a government?  I think you'd have a difficult time proving that, through the history of human life, the government's job has clearly been that of protecting the basic human rights of its constituents.  Because it's the US government?  There's nothing in the Constitution that says the US government must enforce your rights on your behalf.  In fact, quite to the contrary, the founders made it clear the government will one day impinge on those rights, and on that day it is *OUR* responsibility, not the government's, not some other body's responsibility to enforce those rights again.



No, you pay taxes because your elected officials realized they control all the guns, and the best way to keep themselves as your well paid elected official is to take your money and give it to the circus or themselves.  I don't think the 16th amendment ever mentioned anything about how your taxes will be used to actually benefit you (and this is precisely what the government was denied the power to tax beforehand, because the government will use that power not to help you, but to help itself.  The government is not altruistic.  The government does not 'like' you.  The government works for itself, it is a living organization whose constituent parts want to support their ongoing careers and success, even if the cost of said success is levied against an involuntary victim.)



We've had one person report that his experience in Japan was precisely that.  I suffered socialized medicine in Moscow and I can also vouch for it, although I don't think anyone would want to count Russia 1989 among the examples of socialized medicine.  I would be interested in seeing an average wait time between US public and private hospitals, and an average wait time between US hospitals and say Canadian hospitals.

This isn't to say that these people are corrupt, but simply that large groups of people are not going to simply sacrifice themselves.  There's a reason Mother Theresa is considered a saint, and it's because she's unusual in her accepting her life is better spent not pursuing her own best interest.  And if you were offered a choice between a job paying $70k and helping poor people in a stressful environment and $140k and helping rich people in a pleasant environment, I would not fault you for choosing the latter.  If you disagree, then why aren't you currently working in the Peace Corp, or doing charity work for someone with more need than yourself?

I tried to track down some figures on this, and this is what I've found so far:
http://www.businessweek.com/te...c20070621_716260.htm



This one doesn't seem very neutral, but has a number of citations to check:
http://www.cwhn.ca/resources/cwhn/privateClinics.html

This one doesn't seem so neutral, but brings up some interesting points:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/art...ealth_care_is_so_bad
I especially like the point about wait times, and how they don't factor in the people who don't get any treatment at all (ie, "wait" forever).  In other words, a person in the US who does end up getting treatment for a non-emergency might wait less than those in other countries, but many people in the US don't end up getting the treatment at all.  Is it better to have 3 people out of 5 get quick treatment, or all 5 get slightly less quick treatment?

Here's another one that ranks the countries in the commondwealth fund's survey:
http://www.commonwealthfund.or...ow.htm?doc_id=482678
(note--the full document is downloadable in pdf form, the link is just an overview)

And just to get some level of balance, here's a link to Fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html


Er...throwing balance back out, here's the huffington post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...aiting-_b_55749.html


One from consumer affairs which talks more about the rate of errors:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com.../medical_errors.html

I've just concluded a second tour of duty on a volunteering work on education reform in Serbia and frankly I've had enough. (And I wouldn't be surprised if after I die my church declares me a saint, but that's their stupidity.) But let's face it, we need to calculate average wait per dollar spent. Without question European health care system gives much better results than in the US.

Tzuppy, thank you for your service, you're a better man than I.  Now if I may ask, how many other people do you see willing to dedicate their lives to the service to others?  1 per 10 people?  1 per 100?  1 per 1,000?  How many social-support jobs are we looking to fill?

Tycho, good research.  I noticed a few interesting things.  Firstly,

Secondly, the dominant factors quoted by Business week weren't problems with paying, but rather:



In other words, we need to make more doctors, more health care providers, and give them fewer restrictions and less paperwork.  That means reducing salaries is the worst thing we can do.  The article goes on to point out that the market, not the government, is responding in the form of "minute clinics".

It would seem that, despite Falkus' regularly crowing how terrific the Canadian health care system is, it seems to fall behind even the US in regards to providing care.  From what I can tell, the cause is that Canada makes it illegal to offer private medical care, period.  This is contrary to most every other industrial nation.  The truth is, public health care does not adapt quickly to changing conditions, it's very static.


One of the articles Tycho posted was that the difference between non-profit private hospitals is significant compared to for-profit private hospitals, presumably because of the reasons Tycho has already cited.  If that's the case, we shouldn't be focusing on eliminating or even marginalizing private care, but rather shifting the drive for profit to one that encourages good care.  Like Tycho pointed out, generally for-profit companies will find that it's worthwhile to treat 90% of their paying patients, but not 100%, and none of the non-paying customers.  So we need to increase the cost for that marginalized 10%, mostly through negative publicity and advertising, since that's most straightforward and, if we want to take care of the non-paying, incentivize that through government programs.  This comes back to the numbered suggestions I made previously.  Trying to manage everything under a single government program has its own flaws, and will limit medical research and adaptability.  Rather, we need to change the game so that treating every customer is seen as valuable and let the market solve the problem itself.

I think the first point got lost somewhere? ;)


I think everyone would agree that we could use more doctors, and give them less paperwork.  The main source of paperwork, though, is the private insurance industry.  I read a while back that on average, every doctor in the US has at least one full time employee who's main job it is to deal with sorting out insurance claims.


Actually, I think the study that all these articles were talking about showed that canada is making some improvements in waiting time (the area in which the US beats it).  But I think we need to remember the fact that people who don't get treated at all aren't being factored into a waiting period in the US.  As I said before, is it better for 3 of 5 people to get treated quickly, or all five to get treated less quickly?  I'm not opposed to private AND public health care, though one of the articles pointed out that this actually tends to increase waiting times in the public system by taking doctors out of that system.  I think the key would be to make sure that any public system is competitive with private systems, so that the private system doesn't end up with all the best doctors.


I don't disagree with this in principle, but when you're "increasing the cost for the marginalized 10%" and "changing the game so that treating every customer is seen as valuable," I think we're already in a situation where we're not actually "letting the market solve the problem itself."  To a degree, anything that achieved that could probably be described as socialized health care.  We're actively toying with the market at that point, in order to get the results we want.  That may well be the way forward, but I think we shouldn't pretend at that point that we're leaving the market on it's own.  The bottom line is that the marginalized group is marginalized because it can't pay the cost of the health care it needs.  The only way to make it profitable for the hospitals to treat them is to have other people pay for it.  There are various ways to achieve that, and it can also be argued that if they can't pay, they shouldn't get treated.  But there's no real way that market forces are going to result in those people being treated without other people paying the bill.

Check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...litics/30mccain.html

McCain plans to give $2500 tax credits to people who get their own insurance.  In other words, the government will be paying for the first $2500 of your health insurance.  The article points out some of the potential problems with the plan, but it's interesting that even the republican candidate seems to be backing government-funded health care (though in a bit more round-about fashion).

Somewhat surprisingly (to me at least), the plans put forward by the democratic candidates (which are pretty similar, and I'm not convinced they're the optimal solution), seem closer to what katisara is suggesting:  changing the game so insurance companies have to cover everyone, instead of just picking the healthiest customers.

Hmmm...if they support everyone, they won't make a profit.

If a business intends to make a profit, but can't, it tends to dissolve to cut off further losses.

By which in I predict that if the act does restrict private businesses in this way, the number of them will decrease (which will, statistically, make it somewhat profitable for the remaining ones, if there are any who remain)

*** Exactly. We've seen their mistakes, so we could do it better and have it work right.


*** And see, that's what those of us in favour of Universal Health Care are wanting: The government to offer a service to modify (in a positive way) the right to life.


*** Let's see, doesn't it say something somewhere about "The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union"?  O, and I really like this bit: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


*** O see, that's where I was wrong. Here I was, foolishly thinking the government worked for the people.


*** Agreed.

I see it, why don't you??  Hmm...  You may want to read up on Discordianism and their views on brainwashing, perhaps you're a victim.

(Yeah, brain fart.)



See, I would be surprised to find that doctors (not the guy the doctor hires) have more paperwork in a private system than public, although I guess I could be wrong.



Do we have information on the number of people who want treatment but are unable to get it for one reason or another in different systems (including the 'forever wait')?



But statistics seem to show otherwise, since Canada has ONLY public health care, as opposed to just about everyone else, and they're at the bottom of the list.




I won't disagree that laissez faire economics are not appropriate for *EVERY* situation (just most :P)  However, I don't think the numbered suggestions I made previously, except for the two optional ones, would be considered socializing health care.  They were predominately on the order of making the market easier to enter, and making information more freely available, in other words, enabling market pressures to have more strength.




I don't know that I would consider private, voluntary health insurance 'socialized', in that it isn't mandated or managed by the government. That 'marginalized' group could still elect not to get health insurance at all if they wanted, taking their own risks, and some could afford to just pay out of pocket.

Another article on McCain's health care ideas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...litics/01mccain.html

Why is that?  If there's only one system to worry about, then paper work should be easier.  If each insurance provider has a different set of forms, that makes things more difficult.  Especially if there's significant back-and-forth from the insurance company, who wants to limit what they're on the line for as much as they possibly can.  Granted, most of that will end up being done by someone the doctor hires, so perhaps its a different issue.



Some of the articles I linked to above mention it, though perhaps not quite as explicitly as we'd like.  A few of them said things like "X% of americans have gone without service...which is far more than the number of people in any of the other countries in the studey."  It seemed pretty clear from the stuff I linked to that the US is fairly unique (among the countries in the study) in the number of people that go without a treatment.




I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as that.  Presumably, part of the reason Canada has those waiting times is because some of it's doctors are being pulled out of the health care system to work for private hospitals in the US.  Perhaps openning it up to private health care would decrease waiting times for Canadians, but presumably it would increase them for those in the US (it that's where Canadian doctors are going).  Like I said, I'm not opposed to having both private and public health care, but the number of doctors is finite, and taking them from one place to boost another is kind of a zero sum game.  One could argue that people who are willing to pay should get shorter waiting times than those who don't, but again I think it's an issue of whether we consider it a luxury or not.





Most of them, yes.  But the ones that actually result in poor people getting coverage would be somewhat socialist in my eyes.  I don't see much way around that, really.  Any system which provides coverage to people who aren't able to pay as much as it costs to deliver the service will have to charge someone else for it.  Whether it's the government footing the bill with tax money, or whether it's the other customers paying more for their insurance because the law says the companies have to give insurance everyone, someone else is paying for the treatment, which seems socialist to me.  I don't use the word as a necessarily bad thing, though, so that might be a difference.




In a private, voluntary health insurance system, people who are likely to be a net loss for the companies aren't going to get insurance.  If you want everyone to be able to get insurance, the only way to do so is have someone else cover the loss that those people cause to the companies.  You can do that different ways, for example by requiring companies to sell insurance at reasonable rates to everyone (this is the clinton and obama method), or by the government paying the bill for whatever rates the insurance companies charge instead of having the customer pay (this is sort of mccain method, though his plan only covers part of the bill, so some people still won't be able to afford it).  Either way, though, you're pushing the cost of insuring these people onto someone else (either tax payers or other customers).

1)  Because governments like paperwork, and they like EVERYONE to do paperwork. The more you get paid, the more paperwork you should be doing.
2)  Private industry does not like to pay people lots of money to do paperwork someone who gets paid a lot less money could be doing.  Doctors do make LOTS of money, so no company worth its salt will let the doctor do an ounce more paperwork than is strictly necessary.



Ah, so you think Canada already does suffer from the public/private split in that there are private hospitals in the US.  Since there aren't any countries around the US that pay doctors as much as the US does, if the US went solely public, the doctors couldn't go anywhere else for higher wages and would just have to accept the salary cut.



I see, you were looking specifically at those measures.  No, I would agree, you can't get blood from a rock.  But as I said elsewhere, making it into a no-interest loan program or allowing them to work it off through other methods would both reduce the burden on the taxpayer, and reduce intentional misuse of the system.

I think point 1 is an oversimplification of things, but I'm willing to roll with it for now.  The thing to keep in mind, though, is who is creating the paperwork.  By and large, it's not the companies paying the doctor's salaries, it's the companies paying the doctors fees (the insurance campanies).  While a private hospital might be better at eliminating paper work than a public hospital, it's the insurance companies who are creating most of the paperwork burden, not the hospitals, if I'm not mistaken.  Like I said, this is usually offloaded to an employee other than the doctor, but it's still more work than would be needed in a public system.


Ah, so you think Canada already does suffer from the public/private split in that there are
Possibly, but that wasn't really my point.  Like I said, I'm not arguing in favor of a private practices being illegal case, I'm just saying that the reduction in one persons waiting time will tend to come in exchange for an increase in someone elses.  Private systems would probably reduce waiting times for the people paying them, but would unintentionally increase waiting times for those who don't pay, by removing doctors from the public hospitals.  That may be considered acceptable.  I just want to point out that it's a bit of a zero sum game in this case.




I think loans/work off programs could be a decent addition, though more for paying for treatment beyond what insurance covers, rather than for insurance itself.  If a person can't afford insurance now, having them take out a loan for it is only going to make it harder for them to afford it next year, and the problem grows bigger every year.  Perhaps just having them go without insurance, and giving them a loan when they need treatment would be a way forward, but a large debt when you're poor only makes it harder to get out of poverty.  Again I think it comes down to what we consider the lesser evil:  someone doing everything right to get out of poverty, and still not being able to due to health problems or someone having to pay for someone else's treatment.

I do agree with your last point; insurance is an expected, recurring cost, and trying to deal with it through loans will never work.  I don't think McCain's idea is real great either in that it'll help the poor get insurance, however it still neglects people who can't get insurance because they're just too expensive.

A bit of a change of topic, but I read this in the nytimes today, and thought it made a very good point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...th/views/03essa.html

The closing statements, in particular, I thought were well put:

Ah, I look forward to the day when the law allows medical professionals, in a clinical setting, to kill people bothersome to me.  After all, killing bothersome people has always been done, since the time of the ancient Greeks, so lets at least make it safer.

Such a day is already here, if you consider state executions to qualify.  Euthenasia and assisted suicide probably qualify as well.  But probably executions are a good example to illustrate the point.  I'm opposed to the death penalty, and would support changes in laws that would make it illegal.  But if such laws came about, and the states decided to willfully ignore them, and keep killing their inmates anyway, and using more painful or brutal means to do it, I would probably vote to return to the old system.

More importantly, though, I think your post does a good job of pointing us back towards the real disagreement:  is a fetus a full human, with it's own set of rights, or is part of a human that belongs to the mother, in the same way her fingers do?

I would argue that the problem in large part has to do with our tendancy to discritize continuous data.  We want to think of things as human or not human, with no other option.  Like a digital 1 or 0, there's no room anything in between.  We do this with the child/adult boundary.  One day you're a child, then next day you turn 18 and you're an adult.  There's no legal transition period, it's a step change.  Similarly, at 11:59pm the day before your birthday, the law says you're not mature enough to consume alchohol.  Sixty seconds later, you've learned all you need to know.  We're not good with thinking of things as a continuum.

How much more similar to you is an adult chimpanzee than a single fertilized egg cell inside a woman?  And yet, people are more than happy to think of the egg as a full-fledge human being, with all the rights granted to such, but the chimpanzee as 100% not human.

Wouldn't it make more sense to think of a fetus as a partial human being?  That starts at about 0% at conception, and grows to 100% at birth?  I don't know if that'd solve the abortion rights debate, or just make it more complicated, but I think it might calm passions a bit.

Are you serious??  So because murder is illegal, and therefore most people who die of murder suffer and take much longer to die than they should (because the murderer was unskilled, rushed, and/or worried about evidence), we should make murder legal?



I would disagree.  I think the problem is that the question requires a discrete answer.  You can't get half an abortion.  Abortion is most certainly either 1 or 0, regardless as to where the baby stands between those two extremes.

If doing so would actually result in people dying in more humane ways, less unitended victims, and wouldn't cause a rise in the number of murders, then yes.  Of course, those are very unlikely to be the result of legalized murder, so legalizing wouldn't be a good idea.  I'd say prison terms for convicted murders does a much better job at discouraging murder than prison terms for doctors who perform abortions does to discourage abortions.  A better example might be the 'war on drugs.'  Making drugs illegal seems, in many cases, to do more harm than good (increased crime, large sums of money to criminal organizations, no regulation, etc.), so in many cases it might better to make the drugs legal, and regulate them.



But the abortion itself is hardly the important point, I would argue.  It's the fetus that anti-abortionists care about, I would say, and the woman's right that the pro-choice side cares about.

An analogy might be drunk driving.  You can't half drive a car--you either drive it, or you don't.  To a degree, you can't take half a drink, either--you either drink something, or you don't.  But the law allows you to have a certain amount of alcohol in your blood before you are considered to be driving drunk.  You're not automatically breaking the law if you have one drop of beer in your blood.  Because drunkness is a spectrum, you can set a threshold (which is itself an act of discritizing continuous data).  What matters is how drunk you are, and there are degrees of drunk, even if there aren't degrees of driving or not driving.  The driving isn't issue, its the danger you put people in by driving drunk.  Putting people in more danger (by being very, very drunk) should (and does, if I'm not mistaken) carry a stronger penalty than putting people in less danger (by being less drunk).  Its even considered acceptable to put people in a very small amount of danger (by having alcohol in your blood, but being below the legal limit), because your rights to drive around are considered to outweigh the small amount of additional danger it poses to others.

Likewise, perhaps a fetus, as it grows, could be considered to have rights proportional its developement.  I think most people, on either sides of the issue, agree that if an abortion is to be performed, it's better to get it done as early as possible.  As the fetus grows, and gains more rights, the conditions under which the womans right to have an abortion outweigh those of the fetus change.  Early on, when the fetus is a few dozen cells, it wouldn't have many rights at all, and the woman could get an abortion for whatever reason she saw fit.  A week before birth, the fetus would have nearly full rights, and it would be very, very difficult for the woman to get an abortion.  Sort of just brain storming here, and thinking out loud, so there's probably a number of flaws, but it simply seems odd to me that a single cell should have any rights at all, let alone as much as a full-grown adult, and far more than a full grown chimpanzee.

I see where you're coming from.  I don't necessarily agree, but at least I understand.

I wonder though how many fetuses and mothers died before Roe v Wade.  It would be tough to beat the numbers presently, though.



However, if we had a 'continuous' option, we could apply it appropriately.  For instance, if we had a way to transplant aspects of the growth of the fetus to an artificial womb or we could have babies born tremendously early without it being ridiculously more expensive and dangerous, we might be able to employ those tools to make an analog solution to an analog problem.

Drunk driving isn't a great example (nor minor/adult) because the final punishment CAN be less discrete.  There's nothing saying that I must get 10 years for having a BAL of this level.  The judge can give me community service.  There's just a minimum (parole) and a maximum (10 years or whatever).  Similarly, minors can be tried as adults, and adults can be given lenient sentences.



I've never seen that argument before, but I do like it.  I would only see two major problems with it;
1)  How to define what rights are conferred at what point
2)  There are people on both sides of the fence who stick to absolutes.  People who feel that, absolutely, the woman has a right to control her body under all circumstances, and always has the right to kick out what might be seen as a freeloader, regardless as to whether that kills said freeloader or not.  Similarly, people who feel that that single stem cell has a human soul and therefore deserves full protections that go with that, regardless as to human-like the cell is at this moment.

*** I vote for Tycho.


*** It's a percentage game tho', not just straight numbers. What percentage of abortions pre-RvW were "successful", as opposed to the percentage of "successful" ones now?


*** Actually, many states have mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of whether you're .01% over the limit or 100% over. The judge may think you deserve community service, but legally he must sentence you to two years (or whatever the minimum is).


*** Becos it's perfectly legitimate to give children the punishment of adults, but by no means should they be allowed to have the priviledges of adults.

I think you're going to have to rephrase that.  If there were 100 successful abortions, 10 unsuccessful (i.e. - no one died) and 5 catastrophic (everyone died, except, probably, for the doctor), the total number of deaths is 110.  You can weigh fetuses differently from women if you want, however.

If there have been 30 million successful abortion since, however, you're going to have to weigh fetuses as being pretty nonconsequential for those numbers to come into balance.



I don't believe drunk driving is a criminal act (rather, it's a driving offense, and falls under civil), and there is generally still leeway - serving time under house arrest is a simple example.



At times.

Before I give a retort, I'd like to probe a bit more on katisara's view.

Your stance has been very much on the pro-life sort of things, even to the point of associating pro-choice as por-murder. Is there any exception to this rule of yours, however? Must a woman have a baby concieved of rape in order to avoid this murder scenario? How about life-threatening conditions?

I don't think there's any question that abortion is in fact killing an independent being which happens to be human, so, especially close to the third trimester, it is certainly analogous to murder.  I have a hard time understanding how we can say it's okay to partially birth a fetus to kill it and remove it, but if the fetus makes those three inches on its own, it's now protected fully under law.  Like Tycho said, it's a very discrete system, yes or no, with no real in-between.  That doesn't make sense.



I've not gone too deeply into studying rape.  I'll be the first to admit, I have no authoritative opinion on the matter.  HOWEVER, I will say that killing someone due to the circumstances of his conception seems to be poor justification.

As for threatening the mother's life - sometimes we find ourselves in cases where we must choose between trying to save both or knowing we'll save one.  Those are tremendously difficult decisions.  I don't think there's any way we can apply a hard and fast rule to those situations in either direction.  If someone finds herself in a situation where she authentically faces a significant chance of death (and likely thereby killing the baby), that consideration must be explored, and I don't think we should look down on someone who chooses that course.

It's also worth saying, overall I agree with Tycho's assessment of things - a first trimester abortion is not the same beast as a third trimester abortion.  I can't really justify a third trimester abortion without also justifying infanticide, because basically that's what it is - the baby could be safely removed from the uterus and survive as a healthy child at that point.  It's like killing a kid because you need the crib.  A first trimester fetus is not in the same situation.

That's a bit different then what you were implying a bit ago. Is first-trimester abortions still murder in your eyes?

I think we could all agree (or most of us, at least) that third trimester abrotions are simply too far for comfort, and that what you essentially have is the killing of a fully formed baby.

But this isn't what most pro-choice people are talking about when they say they are for keeping abortion legalized. Maybe they speak about allowing third trimester abortions where you are, but here, it's illegal to have an abortion beyond 5 months, and only that long in the case of dire circumstances. Without that, it's 4 months tops. For the most part, that's first trimester.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't think I could ever have an abortion, especially given that I'm somewhat of an accident myself. However, this is a very personal and complex question, and that's my choice, based on what I know and what I believe. I think it's only fair in these matters to allow other people to allow others to make their choice as well.

If life begins at conception, then does a fertilized egg that does not attach to the cell wall of the uterus and instead flows out during normal menstruation (as is the result even more common than becoming pregnant) imply that the woman has committed murder?

*** I think Vexen has quite clearly and accurately stated my feelings on this as well.

Depends on what the other guy is arguing :P



I'm pretty sure in the US, there's no law forbidding third trimester abortions.  I know there were several attempts to ban partial-birth abortions which were shot down.



Couldn't I argue it's a very personal choice as to whether or not I decide to kill or abandon my newborn?  Or my four-year-old?  Or my wife?  And therefore you have no business legislating it?

Couldn't I argue it's a very personal choice as to whether or not I decide to kill or abandon my newborn?  Or my four-year-old?  Or my wife?  And therefore you have no business legislating it?

A fetus isn't a person, it's only a potential person, that's the difference.
This message was last edited by the player at 11:21, Thu 05 June 2008.

Prove it.  What does a newborn have that an 8-month fetus doesn't?

Lower Mortality Rate outside of the Womb?

So in other words teenagers deserve more protections than old people?  Or do accountants deserve more protections than firemen?

On a federal level, you are correct. There are no federal laws that ban late term abortions. However, 36 states have state laws banning them outright, and another 13 allow them only meeting certain conditions (namely, medical conditions that would prevent a healthy delivery, either for the child or the mother). Here in California, clinics are allowed to abort up to the 24th week. However, most clinics won't usually perform one later than 18 weeks without a medical reason.



Well, you could, but I'm not sure how successful you would be. You once again associate a cluster of cells with your murder. Understand that there is a difference, mostly that there isn't an ambiguity present on whether or not your four-year-old or your wife qualifies as as a sentient person. There most certainly a question present on the an embryo. I doubt very much you would disagree with that. Though you might argue that that difference isn't very important, many pro-choice would argue otherwise.

Do you have a problem with contraception? I would imagine, if aborting a growth that could hardly be seen is equivalent to murder, one could certainly make a strong case that doing anything to prevent that conception from happening is equally the murder of a future being.

If I understood you correctly earlier, you said to Tycho that a first trimester abortion is very much different from a third trimester, but what you've just stated seems to infer that any abortion is equivalent to the murder of a person. How, then, are they different beasts?

Lastly, lets suppose you would had you way, and abortion entirely is made illegal. How should we enforce such matters? Send the pregnant teen who attempts to seek an abortion to jail? Should those that get pregnant via rape be given some form of compensation for the time, energy, and money they are now forced to give to the child? Pregnancy can be a major hinderance in a career. Should there be laws in place to make it so that businesses can't hold one's pregnancy against them, and accept the occasional loss of productivity over it?

And do you honestly believe that, if made illegal, that abortions will for the most part, stop, instead of simply making illegal and unsafe abortions more popular?

Perhaps not my four-year-old, but I would certainly argue my two-year-old is ambiguous on that count, and even more so last year.

Also worth noting, we are all 'clusters of cells', so somehow implying that fetuses are clusters of cells and therefore not human, of course, fails to pan out.  I understand you're using that term because there's no appropriate word for 'cluster of independent human cells but possibly not human', but it isn't an argument in and of itself, at least not without more support.

Again, it comes down to what Tycho brought up.  We have a sperm and an egg, which most people agree aren't humans or a human, and we have a newborn baby, which most people agree are completely human, but little agreement on what's in the middle.



Personally?  No.  And even those who are anti-abortion (such as the Catholic Church), if they are anti-contraception, they are such for different reasons.  The Catholic argument against contraception is completely different than the one against abortion.



Did I say that?  I don't remember.  The argument could be made, but it would be a different argument from the one I've mostly been pushing so far.

Ultimately though, the question again is, how do you pick a hard point in a continuum?  Is an abortion halfway through the pregnancy only half as bad as infanticide?  If so, how bad is infanticide?  Is an abortion the first day of pregnancy only .3% as bad as infanticide?  Is that still acceptable?  I don't think that's an easy question to dismiss.



Are you suggesting that laws should be based on how convenient they are to enforce?

Anyway, such things can be enforced with punishments less cruel that jail time.  I don't think jail time is really appropriate since the teen isn't a threat to general society, and there's no need to separate her from it.  However, community service would be a reasonable punishment.  Similarly, house arrest could work.



Honestly, I could see that.  We already have programs to help feed and provide services for people who are abused or poor.  There really aren't enough programs for women who are pregnant, and almost all of them are religious in nature, which drives some of the most needy away.  I don't see how we can justify welfare and suicide hotlines but not support for pregnant and in a tough spot.



Pregnancy really isn't the hindrance it once was.  Women regularly work up until the last week (or even longer), take off some of their federally protected maternity leave, then get back right to the grind.  We already have maternity leave laws in place.  We have options for adoption (and in fact, there is a huge surplus of sponsor families compared to the lack of available children).  I don't feel this is as big of an issue as you make it out to be, unless the woman is a professional athlete or model or something.

Also worth pointing out, generally businesses are not liable for things you do to yourself, or that happen to you because of your personal choices.  If I jaywalk and get hit by a bus, the business is under no requirement to keep me on if I can't perform my duties.  There are far more protections for women who get pregnant than there are for people who fall into open manholes, do drugs, get hit by buses and so on.  So yes, I am suggesting that responsible and intelligent women take responsibility for making their own decisions and planning their own lives.



I think the number would increase signficantly.  In fact, the current theory is that there has been a drop in crime primarily because the legalization of abortion has made an unprecedented drop in the number of unwanted pregnancies.  So on that line of thought, yes, I suspect if made illegal the number of abortions would drop precipitously.

Almost missed this.

No, this isn't murder as it lacks intent or even voluntary action.  Is your coughing into the air so a virus reaches someone who consequently dies from the flu virus you ejected murder?  Of course not.

It is KILLING.  Biologically, there is no question about that.  The cells were alive, now they're dead.  It may or may not be killing a human being, depending on your definition of human being.  But it certainly isn't murder.

Similarly, a full term woman who has a stillbirth did not murder her baby (and in fact, the suggestion would be quite offensive).

Why? How is it much different than your argument? We've already made it a point that most pro-choice are talking about early term abortion, not late term, and to that point, what's the difference between an embryo and the sperm and egg? Both are clearly small biological units that could potentially become a human.

If the argument is that a possible future human was denied life by abortion and that's murder, then I would imagine that a possible future being would also be denied in the case of contraception. So, that too would be murder, by the same standards.



Agreed. It's not an easy question, and it shouldn't be dismissed. However, to be fair, you're the one equating murder to all abortion, regardless the state.



Perhaps. I don't see much a point in having a crime that's a crime in name alone. And, if it makes things worse more than it makes things better, I'm not sure we should have the crime at all.



Hold on a moment. You just equated through most of your arguments that abortion is murder. Yet, this is your punishment for murder? This doesn't sound much like you believe it's murder at all. Appearently, abortion has about the same penalties as indecent exposure in your ideal world. Or murder isn't that big a deal.





Anyone else see these ideas as mostly, if not completely, contradictiary? One states that women could use the help, and another states that pregnancy isn't that dehibilitating. It's like answering your own question.

At any rate, I would disagree with the notion that pregnancy isn't a hinderance. Perhaps it isn't as much as it was, but it is still. There's been plenty of studies that go to show that businesses often will practice gender discrimination on this basis, that, if looking at a young man and a young woman for the same position, with the same qualifications, and both are newly weds, chances are, he'll get it, because they are wanting to avoid having to deal with maternity leave and the cost of finding a replacement. In that sense, it's more efficient. After all, if given the choice between hiring an employee that will likely need a several week leave and will need a replacement in that time, and one that likely wont, which would you pick?

To that end, I would agree that many women are taking less time off for pregnancy, working up to the last week, but I would hardly argue that in most cases, it's by choice. It's about proving you're still an asset, productivity, and making money enough to pay the bills. Compared with many other countries, the US has a painfully short materinty leave. And it's unpaid leave as well. The US is the only developed country that I know of that has no paid maternity leave, and it's unpaid leave is one of the shortest in the world.

In addition, what about those that do have a physically demanding job, or have a job where they have to be thin? Do we exclude them simply because it's not common enough to deal with?



Maybe we should have protections for other people. Wait... Did you just equate a pregnant woman to a junkie? Seriously, you're making it out like anyone who has an unexpected pregnancy is a tottal whore.

Unexpected pregnancy happens, often, even to responsible, intelligent women. Should a woman still pay, even having taken all the proper precautions? Contraceptions fail sometimes, and even having sex once in your entire life can leave you pregnant. What about rape? Pregnancy is also not an uncommon occurance there. Was she not being a responsible, intelligent woman there? Or do such cases just fall by the wayside because we have to teach the party girls responsibility?

Likewise, isn't this a very sexist and unfair consequence? A man can sleep with anyone he wants (or rather, anyone who will let him), not have to practice safe sex, and at the end of the day, still get his pay with no consequences in that reguard. What about men being responsible and intelligent in planning their own lives? Or is that a far less important point?



I'm not particularly sure what you're saying here. Can you rephrase it please?



And saying that someone who had an abortion committed murder isn't offensive?

Neither a sperm nor an egg is an indepdendent creature, they are not a new individual, nor will they, on their own, develop into anything.  They deserve no special protection, no more so than a mole or a fingernail does.



While I do recognize we two seem to agree that late-term abortion should be avoided, I don't know that everyone here has accepted it.  Simultaneously, the point is it's a continuum.  Is protecting a fetus in the third trimester sufficient?  Why not the second?  And if the second, why not the first?  Again, it comes down to where to draw the line.



The question is whether the fetus right now is human, even if that human is composed solely of stem cells.  Or more accurately, if it is proto-human, somewhere on that continuum.  I don't think anyone here would say a sperm is a proto-human.



I won't debate that I'm using the murder of a child as my measuring stick, but what else would you recommend, if our goal is to determine if abortion is wrong?  After all, what we are all concerned about is whether or not abortion is murder.  I assume that's why you oppose third trimester abortions, that you think it's akin to murder.  I'm simply saying, again, if third trimester abortion is considered murder (or close to murder), why not second trimester?  What is the difference between Tuesday and Wednesday when approaching this issue?



1) I don't believe punishment is meant to be retributive.  It's meant to be correctional, to protect society and to dissuade people from crime.  Society is safe from these people.  I think sufficient community service should serve as sufficient dissuasion.  Jail isn't every effective at correcting behavior anyway, so that's not a huge issue.
2)  I don't believe abortion (or I should say, I'm not arguing abortion) is equivalent to murder, but that it's in the same vein.  It's like comparing stealing $100 to robbing a bank.  Also, I can't think of a lot of situations where the person requesting the abortion isn't under extreme duress, which is a complicating factor.  Someone who gets serial abortions would be a different matter, however.



No, one said that there should be programs to help pregnant women who are in a tough spot, in other words the qualifier isn't necessarily being pregnant, but being in a tough spot.



If we're talking about a woman who cares little enough about the child to get an abortion, who therefore will presumably put the child up for adoption, won't be needing much maternity leave.  Birth requires generally 4 days leave, c-sections require up to 2 weeks (4 for physically strenuous work).  There's no time needed for bonding with the baby.



I'm going to have to continue this later, as I'm about to leave.  Sorry for the interruption

*** Perhaps at the place where nature has drawn the line? If the unborn can survive outside the womb, then no abortion. If the unborn cannot, then sure. Let nature choose.


*** Is our goal to determine it's rightness, or to determine a way to manage it? I for one wouldn't deny that it's wrong, but I consider it a necessary wrongness which needs to be managed, much like drugs.

One could argue that a sperm is an independent creature, I'd say.  It's more capable of living 'independantly' than a just-fertilized egg, if only just barely.  Also, a fertilized egg will not develope into anything 'on its own' either--it requires the mother to do so. This isn't to say that eggs or sperm should be treated as people.  I don't think they should, of course.  But neither do they suddenly go from 'nothing at all' to 'completely a person' the instant the sperm gets inside the egg.  Again, that's the discrete thinking problem biting us again.  A just-fertilized egg isn't qualitatively all that different from the egg and sperm it was just a few seconds earlier.


Depends on just what we mean by 'proto-human.'  A saying that I quite like is "a chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs."  From one point of view, one could say that human males are just 'proto-sperms.'  I don't think anyone holds that view, but it highlights the point that its an issue of what we consider the 'important thing' and what we consider just something that important thing makes.  The reason no one considers sperm to be 'proto humans' is because they not very much like a human at all.  An 8.5 month-old fetus, on the other hand, does seem quite a bit like a human, so it's much more natural to think of it as a 'proto-human.'  But both the sperm and the 8.5 month-old fetus are just steps along the way.  Instead of thinking "is it, or is it not" a proto-human, we should be thinking "how much is it 'proto' and how much is it 'human'?"


I think the comment you made about moles and fingernail clippings might be a start.  Instead of just thinking child/not child, think about what it really is: 1 cell, 100 cells, a thing with a round bit and a sort of tail, a thing with two nubbly hand-like things,...,a thing that looks just like a baby, a thing that is a baby but just 2 minutes from birth, etc.  A fetus goes from being almost nothing, to almost a baby, and hits everything in between on the way.


The difference between Tuesday and Wednesday is the difference that the fetus changes in that time.  Which may be very little, but little things add up, so that the difference between today, and 6 months ago could be quite significant, even if each day between now and then you could have said "what's the difference between today and yesterday?"

But that line is moving.  We've now had successes with babies born in the second trimester.  Literally, a baby the size and weight of a cell phone.  And of course, birthing each baby when the mom wants an abortion, and letting it die by the environment rather than the doctor's scalpel makes it tremendously more expensive, and those who do survive are forever going to have physical maladies caused by that course.  (But I do like that line of thought.)



My goal is to determine firstly, whether it's ethically right or wrong.  Secondly, how to manage it.  The two, of course, are linked.  One leads to the other.

I could see the argument that first trimester abortions are a necessary evil.  Not sure I agree with it, but I can understand it.  However, later than that?  Not so sure.

A sperm does not qualify as a living animal, however a fetus does meet those requirements.



On a basic, biological level, sperm are missing a major criterion to qualify as a human - they don't even have the full compliment of genes.  They don't have a real gender.  And they will never grow or reproduce.  Remember that the sperm, upon fertilization, is assumed into the egg and loses all physical form; it ceases to be a sperm.




I think I've previously agreed to this overall, however.  I just stand by my statement that a sperm is not in any way a human.



But we are trying to determine if it is ethical or not to kill it.  The question arises not because the fetus has traits similar to a mole or a fingernail.  We can all agree that, whereever it falls on THAT continuum is okay.  The question is how similar it is to a human.  That is the point of contention.  Of course, if anyone here is okay with killing humans, that argument won't work with them.



That statement was aimed more at Vexen than at you - obviously, yes, the difference between day 40 of 2nd trimester and day 1 of 3rd trimester is almost nothing - but that's how our laws are drawn up.

Vexen, I am not ignoring you, I'm really eager to reply, but I got your last post just as I was clocking out, and now I just pulled into the train station for a day of training.  You're not forgotten!

Take another bite out as the train pulls into my station...



No, I'm saying a pregnant woman is someone who has a medical condition resulting from her lifestyle.  If my lifestyle includes biking, getting hit by a car is also a medical condition resulting from my choice of lifestyles.  Yes, junkies also suffer medical conditions from their choice of lifestyles.  However, saying they're related beyond that point is a false comparison.



Should the baby pay?  Unfortunately, that's what it comes down to.  SOMEONE is paying, quite dearly.  So yes, the question is who.



Quite to the contrary, I think he needs to help support her.  You're absolutely right, he also contributed to the situation.  I don't know much about child support laws, but they seem like they could use a little work.

That said, you also bring up another interesting point.  If I get my wife pregnant, right now I have little legal say as to whether she can abort the fetus or not.  Isn't it my kid too?




What I'm saying is there are specialists much better paid than I who have made the case that there are a good number of children who have not been born specifically resulting from the legalization of abortion.  So yes, I suspect legalizing it would significantly increase how often it happens.



I'm sure it is, and I'd never suggest it to a woman who had done that, but it's a possibility that needs to be discussed.

*** And ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that, like it or not, most of us who are pro-choice think the woman's life is more valuable than the unborn life. May not be right, may not be nice, but there it is.

In 99.9% of cases, the woman is not losing her life.  She's being severely inconvenienced, but she's not going to die.  In a good number of cases (say if my wife got pregnant) not even her career would be threatened.

So you're saying the woman's convenience is more valuable than the baby's life?

Of course, that argument would hold a lot more water if the baby disappeared after childbirth, so you didn't have to worry about the cost of money and time to raise it.

You mean like if there were a program which allowed you to take a baby the mother didn't want to or couldn't raise, and somehow give it to a family who wanted a baby but couldn't manage to conceive?

Adoption is an option some might consider, but for others its not so much; it might mean someday down the road someone is going to be looking for you to ask why you put them up for adoption.

If we extend this to rape victims, what does that leave us?  An effective way for letting genetic rejects who are so chocked full of those primitive instincts that they would strive to procreate through violence.

I'd say its more than just the mother's right, I'd say it's humanity's right, as a race, to be allowed to determine what sort of people we want to have more of.  The more Rape victims that the government forces to conceive their rapist's children, the more future rapists there will be, in my opinion.

I'd also spread this to "accidents".  Accident referring not to a couple who planned to have children, but not this early.  I refer to someone making a mistake that they, and we, should not have to pay for in the future.

Not under the current laws.  A parent who gives up a child to adoption has protected privacy.



1)  So you think we should eliminate people based on their genetic heritage?
2)  Most rapes aren't done by aggressive strangers, but by friends or lovers who don't understand 'no'.



Again, you support genetic cleansing?



So you feel that trading a baby's life is acceptable for YOUR convenience?

I fail to see how that would do anything other than make it a little bit more difficult for them if they are determined enough.



Type 1 (or is it 2) Diabetes is hereditary; since it no longer presents as big as a problem for diabetics thanks to medicine, instead of dying suddenly for no reason, they are able to have kids.  Hence, as time goes on, the number of Diabetics in a population will grow.

Behaviors and traits are built into Human DNA according to what will achieve the goal of procreating and passing on their genes.  If a rape victim has to have a child, that is the Government encouraging the action of rape as a viable method for passing on genes.  Since being a rapist is now (in these terms) no longer a problem, the number or rapists will rise each generation.  Natural Selection.



So if he doesn't understand 'no', and she has the child anyways, over generational time the number of people who don't understand 'no' will increase.



Are you supporting Government-funded Genetic Stagnation?  If a woman decides that she liked what the rapist did to her, and wouldn't mind raising his child or even adopting him out to some unsuspecting couple, then that's her choice.  But as most people tend not to carry very fond feelings for the result of something they didn't want, this wouldn't be a problem.  Stopping the Government from Opressing us is not Opressing anyone.  If what I've described IS in fact Ethnic Cleansing, I'd describe it at least as an individual-choice genetic cleansing; let each person decide for themselves whether they want the baby.

Though I still say you're stretching the term; I like "Third-Party Sterilization"



Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and OUR Posterity

So...  How would you track down someone with whom you share only half of your genetic data?  I have seen both sides of this in my family, and as of yet, neither was contacted without both parties consenting.  Do you have an example?



You gave a long answer to this.  However, I'm assuming your final answer is 'yes', genetic cleansing is acceptable.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to create a strawman, I genuinely want to understand, as that is a pretty extreme position.



Unfortunately, sexual desire has already been pretty well tied into our genetic line.  I don't think any amount of genetic cleansing will eliminate date or spouse rape.



No, I support govenment protections of individuals' lives, ESPECIALLY those who are least able to defend themselves (children, the elderly, the sick or mentally ill).  Isn't that how we measure how good our society is, by how we care for the least of our numbers?

</quote>

I am... floored.  You feel that intentionally killing people who show traits you don't agree with is a valid method of securing liberty.  Wasn't it Mr. Crinkles who said he's a fascist?

So...  How would you track down someone with whom you share only half of your genetic data?  I have seen both sides of this in my family, and as of yet, neither was contacted without both parties consenting.  Do you have an example?

No, I have no evidence that I can personally provide you, admittedly.

You gave a long answer to this.  However, I'm assuming your final answer is 'yes', genetic cleansing is acceptable.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to create a strawman, I genuinely want to understand, as that is a pretty extreme position.

Aww, but I read everything you write ;)

Basically, to sum it up, I said "If we define Genetic Cleansing as one or more people not wanting your children and thus depriving you of legacy, then sure, I support that."


I am... floored.  You feel that intentionally killing people who show traits you don't agree with is a valid method of securing liberty.  Wasn't it Mr. Crinkles who said he's a fascist?

I'm Italian Fascist in some cases, but none of those cases have anything to do with this argument other than to paint blackface on me and call me prejudice ;)

Say that, for instance, a guy named Joe Blow.  Joe blow is a jerk and a bully; as a child, he was a terror on the neigbhorhood, property damage and all that.  Getting into school, he is a constant bully of other kids, getting in fights and into the principle's office.  Then in his teens he gets a girl pregnant after spiking her drink.

Scenario A: Government-enforced Births

Whether she wants it or not, she'll have to have lat Joe Blow Jr.  Whether she raises it herself or adopts it out, the neighborhood that has to live with him will most likely experience more of the same Joe Blow experience.

Scenario B: Individual-enforced Births

If she likes Joe Blow (assuming he'll actually stick around), she might choose to keep the baby.  Or she might not; she might like Joe Blow, but wouldn't be caught dead pregant with his baby.  Hence, she decides for herself to get an abortion, and so a potential Joe Blow no longer has to be worried about by the parents, the neighborhood, the school, or the government if he turns criminal.
_______________

As a side note, I consider that a mortality rate of less than 55% sufficient to qualify as a living being.  If the fetus can't live outside of the womb, aborting it is no different than amputating a hand.  Definitely not after the first trimester though: I think 6 weeks is enough time to decide whether you want to have a child or not.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:01, Sat 07 June 2008.

*** You want to phrase it like that, yeah.


*** I don't know if this would qualify as "cleansing" or not, but I'd certainly support a eugenics program which would allow us to breed for traits we want. I'm not saying we should automatically kill off any undesirables who are born, but once we get to a point where we can engineer births, I think we should.


*** I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I think a lot of people who are pro-choice simply disagree that a week-old embryo (or fetus or whatever the term is at that point) is an individual life, anymore than, say, a tapeworm is.


*** Yeah that's me.


*** Agreed.

It does? I would have to say that Tycho brings up a good point. An embryo/fetus is hardly an independant creature. If it was, this wouldn't be much of a problem. The problem is in fact that a fetus does depend on it's mother, and is entirely dependant on her, as in, can't exist without her continual support.

Does a fetus qualify as an animal? How? Prove it. Again, at the early stages, I would find that rather difficult to support that a sperm and egg isn't, but a microscopic embryo is. The same things that would disqualify them is still present within the earlier, and even middle, stages of development.

Beyond that, if we assume that's true (a big if), proving that it's an animal isn't sufficient enough to make your case. People kill animals all the time, for survival, for consumption, for market reasons, for enjoyment, and yes, for convenience. None of them are called murders. Proving that an embryo/fetus is an animal isn't enough. You have to prove that it's a person. And that would, again, be a difficult case to make without referencing that it's a future person, in which the same argument could be made for the sperm and the egg: that denying them, or doing anything to prevent them from meeting is, in fact, depriving a future person of life. Hence, the use of contraception would also be murder, by the same reasoning.



So, you admit that you're arguing against a point I'm not making? And where do you draw the line? From what I've heard, it seems that the moment of conception seem to be the line for you, simply because, despite your statements that they are different, you have in fact treated first term abortions exactly the same as third term abortions.



Why not? Why can't sperm or eggs be a proto-human? They are a most vital and important step in the creation of humans. Without sperm or eggs, no embryo can come to be. In that sense, how is sperm or eggs any less part of the development cycle of a human?

None of the things you've stated in response to Tycho would in fac, qualify someone for being human. If a creature simply had 23 chromosome pairs, would that be sufficient, or, for that matter, some people are born with less than 23 pairs of chromosome. Are they not human? Most creatures have a gender that aren't human as well, and beyond that, one can certainly make the argument that sperm has a gender, given that it has some that carry and X chromosome, and some that carry a Y chromosome, which determine the gender of people in the development cycle.

When a sperm meets certain requirements, they will in fact grow. This doesn't work, naturally, if you say they are growing into larger sperm, but it does if you say they grow as living beings, as they will grow into a human, if certain conditions are met, much like a fetus will, if certain conditions are met. After all, fetuses don't grow into larger fetuses. They grow into a human baby. A fetus can't reproduce either, but they can, granted they survive to adolesence. But, looking sperm as proto-humans, I'd say the same thing could be said about them. In fact, I'd say such an argument only helps the idea that sperm aren't their own creature, but simply proto-humans in it's earliest form.



That's a difficult question to answer, but people have made their own conclusions. You, for example, have yet to fully prove that first trimester abortions are exactly the same as third trimester abortions, but you argue it anyways.

This is a very complex issue, and one that doesn't always give consistent answers. Perhaps that's the difference between your argument and mine. I think this is a very personal and complex issue that has heavy ties with one's religion and beliefs in this world, so this is an issue for the individual to sort out. You, on the other hand, believe that, because it's a complex issue, that even the most libral of interpretations should be treated as true, just in case, so no one should have an abortion. Both are legitimate methods.




I disagree. I think someone who's thinking about abortion is thinking about things heavier than what community service can provide a dissuasion for. Appearently, you make the argument that, between 50 hours of voulenteer work and a lifetime committment, the community service is the heavier of the two.

In fact, I would argue that all making it illegal really does is take away the safe and sterile way of doing it. Instead, those under enough duress, as you put it, to have an abortion will have to seek it through much more dangerous means. Illegal abortions, or self performed abortions, are already committed in the thousands each year, and that's with abortion legal. I can't imagine the number that would do so if it were made illegal, and the safe way taken out. There are plenty of horror stories about what happens when people try it themselves, which not only results in an abortion, but plenty of times, the maiming or death of the mother. By contrast, what's the benefit of having such a law in place? Less abortions are had, more teenage mothers or mothers who otherwise are incapable of taking a child are made, more children up for adoption. I would argue that the benefits of such a law wouldn't outweigh the costs by a longshot.

Your last point also seems to be contrary to your first point in this statement. How is a "serial abortionist" a threat to society?



.....OBJECTION!!

That's a completely and utterly offensive statement. Those that wanted to have have an abortion care little for the child or will care little for the child? Have you ever been around a woman who's had an abortion before, or was thinking of having one before deciding to keep it?

Here's a mindblowing reality for you: contemplating aborting a child doesn't make for a parent who won't love the child, or is callous is a completely baseless assumption in an attempt to demonize the women who choose it. I have met plenty of women who have had abortions who love their children dearly, and ones that were too late to have an abortion who love the child all the same.

Case and point, I myself, was almost aborted, but my mother has loved me dearly from the moment I was born. We have a great relationship, maybe even closer than most, and I bare no resentment for her for thinking about never having me when she was younger. Case the second, my brother, again in a the same situation, my mother was even at the abortion clinic but decided against it last moment. And she loves him just as much as she loves any of us. Case the third, my sister was in fact, planning to have an abortion, but was only stopped by situational matters, simply put, she was past the point where any clinic would take her without a medical reason. She was even planning on giving it to my mother, but after the child was born, she refused to give it up, and she absolutely adores her daughter.

Simply because one might be intending to have an abortion doesn't make one a careless parent who doesn't even want the child, or care about the child. These are issues far more complex than you're making them out to be. One of the reasons the adoption option rarely pans out is because, after having the child, the parents tend to change their minds. There's some kind of natural instinct that tends to make one want to keep and care for the child after delivering it, and giving a child up for adoption, just like considering abortion, is one of the toughest things that any mother or father reportedly can do, even if they intended to do so from the beginning.

You speak of offensive statements, but did you ever consider that perhaps someone in this forum might have had an abortion? You say you'd never say such things to one who did, but how do you know I didn't have one? I've never told you if I have or haven't.

Moving on, don't you think a couple of weeks is a rediculously short period of time? I think that's what companies would like you to believe. I have a difficult time imagining a pregnant worker who's late in term is actually as focused on her work than one who is not, and I think they really should be. And I would imagine it takes longer than just a couple of weeks to properly bond with a child. This is why other nations have a much lengthier period of maternity leave.

And you assume that most people who would have an abortion wouldn't keep the child, and I would disagree with that notion. I think they would. Assuming, of course, that making it illegal does in fact prevent abortion in many cases. You keep making those that would have an abortion out to be these careless mothers who couldn't possibly be thinking about keeping the child or are too callous to think of taking care of it, when I think that would be the minority of cases. And I really do think it's a cheap shot.



And the lifestyle choice is...being female? You have a very broad stroke in determining what a lifestyle is. Appearently, living is a lifestyle, and thus just stepping out of your house, you should be well aware of the possibility that you will be hit with a baseball bat just stepping out. I would disagree with the idea that getting hit by a car is the natural consequence of biking, just as I disagree that getting pregnant is the natural consequence of being female.



Again, you make the assumption that the embryo is a person, without you ever proving the point. I think that argument, once again comes down to the sperm and egg. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, and a man doesn't want to impregnate, than it's the sperm and egg who have to suffer the fate of not ever becoming a person, due to the "selfish" actions of their parents to use contraception.



Forgive me for being bold, but I think your'e failing to see the whole picture here. It's not just time and money that's lost in this case. It's worry, it's fear, it's stress, natural consequences of having a kid. And, beyond that, it's a disruption of a career that's entirely one sided.

If a woman were to keep the child, as I think they most likely would, given the option of abortion is thrown out, there's emotional involment as well. She does have to split her concerns between a child and her career, and both are likely to have equal times, if not more scued towards the child. That is costly to someone who's trying to work their way up the ladder. And, honestly, corperations know this. If they know an employee really is worried about keeping their job, and is willing to accept their pay as is to keep it, they'll do it. It only makes business sense, and the parent needs to keep a stead income.

By contrast, what's a parent with only child support lost? Just money, if he so chooses. He can still dedicate as much time as he wants to his career, and doesn't have to split this up between other obligations besides the necesities, and is free to work their way up the ladder and be as ambitious as they want. It's the unimpeded ability to progress that a parent, especially a single one, tends to lose.



This is an interesting point, and it's one that's contested more and more all the time. Does a man have a right to decide if an abortion is going to take place, one way or the other? There's a small, but growing, movement of "mens rights" in this area.

I do agree it's a valid point, and one that is unfair, in the woman's favor this time. I do think that, for equality to exist, there are some things women have to give up too, not just men. For example, in the courts, the mother is much more often awarded primary custody of children, almost entirely based on the idea that she's a woman. I agree that is something that we need to give up, and the basis shoudn't really take gender into the equation.

However, this is one area where, even though the opposing has a very valid and indesputable point, that I feel we have little way to make fair. Because, ultimately, she does have the burden of carrying the child, and likely, caring for it. This is not something he can just take from her.

A friend of mine (who is, oddly, very much a partiarch, don't ask how we get along so well) once argued to me that a man who wants to have a child should have the right to prevent the mother carrying his child from having an abortion. In return, he has to pay for the various expenses and compensate her (he's, of course, assuming the two weren't living together). However, what determind proper compensation for something like that. Can you put a price on a uterus, or being a mother? Ultimately, it's just one area that I don't think we have a proper way to deal with.




There are specialists better paid than I who have made the case that the moon landing was fake and that Area 51 exists too, though I suppose that's beside the point.

I don't feel that's a very strong point. Specifically, yes, when abortion was made legal, there probably was more abortions had. a good deal. However, now that it's part of our regular way of life, would making it illegal result in a similar decrease? I would say no. I'd say the situations are very different between a country that's never had abortions before, and a country that's had abortions legal for half a century before making it illegal again. Much like prohibition simply made illegal brewries more popular, I think illegalizing abortion would only make more dangerous methods of abortion more prevalent.

That isn't to say that I don't think making it illegal would decrease the number of abortions at all. I think it would. But I doubt very much that this would be the significant result you're looking for. We have legalized abortion in every state, yet lots of women, most commonly very young and adolescent women, seek illegal abortions anyways, if simply to hide this fact from their family and friends. I would imagine then that making abortions illegal wouldn't stop these women anyways, and actually increase in number, as now illegal abortion becomes the only option.

Ya know, for a person who's just trying to decide whether or not abortion is ethical, you certainly have made the case for simply one side. It sounds to me like you've already decided whether or not abortion is ethical, well well before any of us made our case.

So does a newborn.  It would not survive long without constant care.



A fetus meets the scientific definition for an animal.  A quick search on google or wikipedia will show you what the generally accepted definition is.

Dictionary.com says:
" any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes."

Wiki says:
"Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and usually multicellular[2] (although see Myxozoa), which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic,[3] generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae. They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking cell walls.[4] All animals are motile,[5] if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals."

Again, a fetus meets these definitions, a sperm or egg does not.




But people don't generally kill other human animals.  Not to say a fetus is a human being (or perhaps I should use a different word, 'person', since that's not a biological word).



My current argument isn't that a fetus is fully a person, but that it is partially human, it is at a point on the continuum.  If we assume a newborn is fully a person, then presumably at 4 months the fetus is half a person.  Is it okay to kill half a person?

Since our current understanding of 'person' refers it be an individual animal, a sperm or egg would be disqualified.



I admit I am not debating solely with you.



If you agreed on banning second or third term abortions, I'd have to argue against first term abortions or we'd have nothing to debate, and that would be quite boring.

HOWEVER, I won't argue that a first term abortion is equivalent to a third term abortion (today).  Killing a fetus at 10 months really is killing a baby.  I don't think anyone can reasonably argue otherwise.  Killing a 1 month old fetus isn't killing a baby (technically speaking).  But does that mean it's ethical?



Because they aren't even animals.



Sperm and eggs are part of the development cycle, but so is water.  Is water proto-human?



It would have to be more than 50 hours.  Probably in thousands.

Granted, that still will not be enough to dissuade some people.  But death row isn't enough to dissuade some people from murder.  No matter what you do, there will be some people who pursue an abortion, regardless as to the legal repurcussions.



I will say, I think arresting doctors for doing abortions is the wrong way of doing it, for the reason you specified.  If women are going to pursue abortions regardless as to the legal repurcussions, she may as well do so in the safest way possible, so clearly we would want to completely protect doctors, but solely pursue the people paying for the abortion.



Do you have a source for that?



I notice you fail to account for human lives saved :)  It would also benefit society on the whole to kill all criminal offendors on the first offense, regardless as to the nature of the crime, however I don't think anyone seriously suggests that.  There are some things more valuable than the overall benefit to society.



She's not.  Did I imply otherwise?




Are you trying to say that a woman who cares enough for her child to not have an abortion would have an abortion anyway?  Isn't that contradictory?  I'm not trying to say that the woman doesn't care at all, but simply that if the child was a high enough priority for her not to have an abortion, she probably wouldn't have an abortion.  On the flip side, generally speaking, a woman who is willing to part with a child via abortion should, in theory, have no problem doing the same via adoption.



Yes.  While she was a caring woman, she clearly did not have sufficient concern for the fetus to not have the abortion.



I never said otherwise.



You were very nearly aborted, as in you very nearly never was born, never enjoyed the life you do now, yet you are comfortable with other people not enjoying the same gift?



I considered it.  There have been cases where I've had debates with people I don't consider to have much foresight or maturity.  You are clearly a wise woman who is comfortable with herself and able to handle adult conversations.  I trust you enough that if you were not comfortable exploring this subject fully, you'd either tell me in advance, or you'd avoid the thread.  That isn't to say that people with emotional issues are immature, of course, only that a mature person will know how to work around those issues.



As I said, irrelevant for the woman pursuing an abortion or adoption.  An adoption requires no bonding time (although certainly grieving time).



It's a shame our culture has changed as much as it did such that we can't just get adoption rates from pre Roe v Wade and compare them to post.  Maybe on Monday I'll spend some time to see what we can find.  It might be illuminating.



The lifestyle choice is being sexually active without sufficient controls.  That applies to men and women.



Are you commenting on my using the word 'baby'?  You can replace it with fetus and it still holds true.  You can argue that the fetus has no value on its own life, and you may be correct, but it's still paying.  My weeding my garden is making the interloper plants pay for my having healthier vegetables.



But there is little we can do to control that at this point.  I've had many discussions with my wife about how unfair pregnancy is (although from the other point of view - I would never be as close to my children, nor would I be the one nurturing them as closely as she would and, given our situation, I wouldn't really be able to watch them grow up).  Pregnancy is a bum deal in that regard, it's certainly not fair.  Take that issue up with God, I don't have an answer :)



At least give me the benefit of admitting I waited until I could tell which way the debate was going!

I'm not surprised by your supporting abortion, but rather your choice of justifications for it.  You could argue the woman has a right to control her own body, that the baby isn't a person yet, but instead you argue it would be better for society if we killed off genetic lines, so we should probably let those lines kill themselves off.



Currently no children have survived if born before the second trimester.  The first trimester is approximately 12 weeks, not 6, but there are plenty of examples of women not knowing until 10 weeks in, or even until the third trimester.  Making a decision as serious as whether or not to get an abortion is difficult, and not something I could easily make in six weeks.

Knew you'd say this; unfortunately, the difference is that a Fetus is solely dependant on one person. (you could argue 3rd person dependance, but that's grasping at straws)

If a woman doesn't want a man's child, the government shouldn't force her to have it.  Teenage pregnancies are hardly ever any more than overactive hormones, and it's only their attitude after the fact that shows whether they were thinking.

There is no We in my argument, only We as in each individual woman deciding for herself who she wants to have children with.




14 weeks actually, but that doesn't conflict with what I said whatsoever; I think others should have the opportunity anytime before the end of the 2nd, but I was referring to if I personally was considering having an abortion :)

As for people not realizing until the 3rd trimester, why do you think that is?  Could it be perhaps some sort of lack of education of the female body, brought about by a conservative religious household (Carrie)?  Or maybe she was raped by somebody inside her family.

For some people, it's more difficult than others, though I'm suprised it would take you longer than 6 weeks, Katisara, considering your views.

But a fetus generally can be supported by a 3rd person.  Like I said, babies have been born at less than, I believe, 4 months, and survived.  And as our technology improves, that date continues to get pushed back.  So this covers not only can the subject of almost all third AND second trimester abortions, but we can assume that in the future, it will roll back likely to even the point of conception.  Since we are trying to generate definitions, that would seem to indicate that we should define a fetus as an independent creature.



I don't think you know my views :)

So you are in favor of supporting a single cell that somehow managed to escape the womb?

*** Nope. Not at all. But it is convenient, and for those of us who are more ethically-challenged than you (using the plural "you", not that I doubt your personal ethics), convenience wins out.


*** Then why not at least regulate the process. Make it so that those who choose to pursue abortion are able to pursue it in a safe and sterile environment, not the back of some bar. Make it so that ONLY first tri- abortions are permitted (except in cases of dire, life-or-death situations), and not whenever the mother wishes/is able to afford it. If, as you say, abortions are going to happen, wouldn't it be better if they were at least controlled?


*** Such as?


*** Not necessarily. On the one hand there is a woman who has been pregnant for, say, three weeks, and she decides to have an abortion. On the other, there is a woman who has been pregnant for the full nine months. There's a big difference between three weeks (or whatever), and nine months, and certainly during that lengthier time period, a woman may become more attached to the unborn child, which would make adoption much more difficult. Even leaving aside the moral/ethical/health aspects, I suspect any woman would be much more open to the idea of an abortion very early in her pregnancy than she would be to the idea of one very late.


*** You're presuming that all life is a gift. It's not. Some would say that any life is better than no life at all, even if it's a life of mental, physical, and sexual abuse. Not everyone sees life as a gift, and in some cases, may consider abortion to be the more merciful choice for the unborn.


*** Except for that first nine months, of course. Or don't you consider that women bond with their unborn?


*** Is there a sufficient control you'd accept beyond abstinence? It's the only form of birth control I know of that's 100% effective.


*** Um, why? I mean, how much time do you require to make a decision?


*** If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that becos in the future it may be possible for a fetus to survive outside the mother from the moment of conception, we should treat the fetus as fully human here and now.

I don't think I quite understand the question.  You mean, if we were able to support a single-celled embryo from conception to infancy artificially, should we be ethically compelled to do it?

I think there's a strong argument for it.

Yes, we could just drop all laws and let people just do whatever you please.  Although to be fair, it would be pretty counter to fascism.

Do you really want to argue that laws should only support what is convenient?



Because generally regulating the process means making it legal, which means more people will get an abortion.

Rather than that, I would say make a law which makes it illegal to receive an abortion, but not to give one, and gaurantees personal privacy.  In other words, it's illegal, which drives away the law-abiding, but not hard to get safely, which still permits it to be done safely if that is the desired course.



Women are still going to pursue second and third trimester abortions, aren't they?  Shouldn't they be regulated so they pursue them in a safe, clinical setting?  :)



Protecting basic human rights, including life.



There will be exceptions, of course.  I was just making a general statement, however.



Fair enough, but who gets the right to make that choice?  Can I decide whether YOU have a right to live?  If your parents decided they didn't think you enjoyed life any more, could they make that decision to kill you?  What about when you were four?  I find it interesting people argue that parents have the right to choose if children should live or not, but then argue that parents shouldn't decide if kids are circumcised without the kid's consent.



You don't get maternity leave for the first 9 months, so no, in that regard it doesn't count.



That *I*'d accept?  I'd accept whatever works, basically.  I think you mean what would I recommend.  Generally defense in depth ;)  There are many, many options available, and people should generally choose multiple to ensure proper safety.  Any sex ed class would say the same.



You're asking whether I could settle the ethical ramifications of abortion, decide the next 20+ years of my future, determine my own personal feelings on the subject and assess my current financial, physical, spiritual and mental capabilities in six weeks, while being heavily emotionally involved in the situation by virtue of being pregnant?  I have to admit, it would be a stretch.  Other people may take less time, of course.



Close.  You're missing the assumption.

The argument people make is 'if the fetus can survive outside of the womb, it shouldn't be aborted', on the theory that a fetus that can survive outside of the womb is a baby at that point, and just happens not to have been born yet (or perhaps something else).  I believe two people have already made that argument.

So let's assume we all accept that argument.

If that's the case, we have to ask 'using what standard of medical technology'?  By modern technology, I believe the limit is 5 months - in other words, abortion should be limited past the 5 month mark.  Twenty years ago, the limit was probably 7 months.  However, in the future we may be able to ensure survival from the first moment.  So therefore, extending this argument, we have two possibilities;
1)  Late abortions become less ethical as technology progresses, which seems to run contrary to the initial assumptions because it invalidates the idea that a fetus that can survive outside of the womb is a baby (by saying some are babies solely by luck of the time and location of their birth)
2)  Abortions at all stages should be considered unethical.  At every point, the fetus is capable of surviving, assuming the appropriate technology is available, therefore at all points its life should be protected.

If you don't accept the base argument, of course nothing that follows stands.

Protecting basic human rights, including life.

If you want to be pedantic about it, a fetus can be deprived of life constitutionally, according to the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, since it hasn't been born yet.

I think she katisara is referring to beyond the constitution. More of a universe right.

Mentos and Diet Coke are rather quiescent on their own.  Combine them, though, and you have a rather explosive reaction.  Sperm and an egg are nothing on their own.  It's only once they've combined and the reaction has started that, in my rough opinion, one could start to believe that they're actually alive any more than a mountain is alive.

That being said, was the sin of Onan specifically that he "spoiled" his sperm or that he didn't follow through on his duty to provide his brother's line with an heir?

Is a mountain alive?  Some of the apocrypha suggest that a mountain would move, where Christ to command it, because of the mountain's love for Christ and its desire to obey, implying that the mountain is at least somewhat "alive".  If, once unjustly shed blood has been spilled on it, the earth can cry for vengeance, then does the earth cry for vengeance for an aborted fetus?  How alive is the earth?

Anyway, having stepped out on that religious tangent, I think it's easy to see that sperm and an egg on their own are pretty much nothing but that once they've started to combine and grow and divide into new cells, a process has been started that generally leads to life.  Aborting that process, halting that process, would seem to be preemptively destroying that which would otherwise, all on its own, have created life.

Perhaps we should debate the difference between male fetuses and female fetuses, given that males are more apt to die both in the womb, while a fetus, and outside the womb, after having been born.  Should this statistic impact our decision on what is life?  Should males, with their higher chance of death anyway, have a later legal abortion date than females?

Lots of discussion over the weekend!  I'm not going to go back and respond to it all, as most of the points I would have made have already been covered.  However, one that often comes up in these sort of discussions sort of jumped out at me:



Every second that you're not having sex (and the vast majority of seconds even when you are), you're causing other potential people 'not to enjoy the same gift.'  People are 'not being born' all the time.  People often bring up the "how would you like it if your parents had an abortion, and you were never born?" argument, and I feel correct answer is "the same way I would feel if they had decided not to have sex that particular moment."  In terms of "denying" someone a future life, I would argue abortion isn't significantly different from abstinence.  Where it's different is in ending current life, and the question is over how much we value that life (or, perhaps more to the point, how much of a human individual do we feel that life is).

Okay, and if someone says "a fetus on its own is nothing.  It's only once it's been born that, in my rough opinion, that one could start to believe it's actually alive," how do you reply?  I think you've started to far into the argument here.  You're treating moment of conception as the obvious point of 'life,' but you're not arguing why you think that, you're just stating it.  And that's sort of where the whole disagreement lies.

Also, I think it'd be very hard to argue that a sperm or an egg isn't actually alive.  "Alive" is a surprisingly difficult word to define, but I think you'd have a difficult time defining it in such a way that sperms and eggs don't qualify without ending up with a lot of other things not being alive which we normally considered to be very much alive.


Again, you're not really arguing your point here, you're just stating it.  The "it's easy to see" argument doesn't work when other people don't see the same thing.  You have to tell us why you think sperms or eggs on their own are nothing, rather than just telling us that it's so.


Would you say that abstinence would be preemptively destroying that which would otherwise, all on its own, create life?


My guess is that most people would say it shouldn't impact our decision (for clarity, when I say 'our decision' I mean the people's decision about the legality of abortion, rather than any individual's decision about whether or not to have an abortion).  Even if it did, though, am I correct that the difference in survival rates is small enough that it wouldn't likely lead to a significantly different law for the two?  A day or two later, perhaps, or something along those lines?  If so, I'd say the difference is already "within the noise" so to speak, and at the level of detail, but not at the heart of the disagreement.

Hey, I'm trying my best!  A man needs to sleep sometime too...


Seriously though, the difference is that one is affecting something that doesn't exist (a baby never conceived), the other is affecting something that clearly does exist as an individual entity (an actual fetus).   Could I say that killing a full grown adult is okay in that after the killing he's no worse off than if he had never been conceived at all?  Of course not, I am depriving that man of a concrete future to which he is entitled by virtue of already being alive.

I would ask for his scientific evidence.  Science generally agrees a fetus is a living creature (and a sperm is not).

Now it is a little blurry between the point of conception and around the first month, month and a half, because at that point there aren't a lot of differentiated cells.  But after that it becomes pretty clear cut.  Keep in mind, the heart starts beating in something like the second or third month.



It is a living cell, but it is not a living creature.  It's not an animal (nor in any other kingdom).  It's not considered a 'being'.



Such as?

Yes, which is why I think it's critical to not focus on what the fetus will become, but rather on what it is now.  The human being that the fetus will become does not exist yet.  It is a potentiallity.  The fetus itself does exist, of course.  But speaking about what it will be in the future is like speaking about people never conceived.  A fetus is a baby in pretty much the same way an egg and a sperm are a baby: they'll become one given the proper conditions.  The difference is that the egg and sperm are one extra "proper condition" away.

To use your analogy of killing people, if you shoot someone who's holding your family at gun point, you'll be treated differently than if you shoot a child.  You can't justify your shooting of the child by saying "if I didn't do it, he might have grown up and held my family at knife point."  What the being who dies is is what's important, more so than what they may or may not become.



You mean it's not alive, or it's not a creature?  I would say it's certainly alive, and that  if it's not a creature, than neither is a fertilized egg (since it's not multicellular yet, is non-motile, etc).  I would argue that science would say that both a sperm and a fetus are alive, but may or may not describe either one as a 'creature' (which is a somewhat vague term anyway).




But to many people, a fetus isn't considered a 'being' either, which is sort of my point.  Everyone tends to be okay with sperm having not rights, and everyone tends to be okay with a baby having the rights of a person.  They don't agree, however, on the transition from one to the other.  My point to Bart was that you can't just say "it's obviously a person now" and expect to change any mind.  There has to be a "...because X, Y, and Z" to convince people.  And I would guess that if you actually get down to trying to explicitly state why a fetus is "obviously" a seperate entity but a sperm isn't, you'll quickly run into problems.



Well, if you define it by how many chromosomes it has, then you end up with organisms lacking a set of chromosomes as being not alive.  If you say it's not alive because it doesn't eat, then a plant isn't alive either.  That kind of thing.  Pinning down precisely what is or isn't alive is actually much harder than one might thingk.  There isn't any easy way to do it that includes all the stuff that we generally think of as being alive without including stuff we don't tend to think of as alive.

As a bit of a change of tack, do you think pro-life people would be okay with a procedure that didn't kill the fetus, but simply stopped it from developing?  If it were, say, 1 month into the pregnancy, and this procedure were performed, it would stay exactly as it was for the rest of the woman's life, but would never grow any further.  Would that be considered acceptable, since it didn't kill the fetus?

To a degree it does.  Similarly, there's a part of what I will be in 60 years in me now, but that future me doesn't exist yet.

Again, it's all about gradual change.  They aren't the same thing, but they aren't different things either.



It is living in that it is part of a greater living creature, but it isn't itself a living animal.

I don't think I'd argue a fertilized egg is an animal, but within a very short time after implantation, it is.



Many people believe very many very false things.  Fortunately, science isn't up to a vote.



To be alive it must:
1.  Have some sort of regulation of its internal environment (both sperm and fetuses have this)
2.  Be composed of one or more cells (both sperm and fetuses have this)
3.  Metabolise (I don't know if eggs have this, but fetuses do
4.  Growth (fetuses have this, sperm do not)
5.  Adaptation (fetuses have this, sperm do not)
6.  Response to stimuli (fetuses have this, sperm do not)
7.  Direct reproduction (fetuses have this, sperm do not)



That is a very interesting idea.  Very sci-fi.

Obviously, depends on the person.  The Catholic Church would say no, as it's blocking the natural process.  I suspect there are people who would say, if you blocked the fetus at a point, kept it 'in stasis' for say 5 years, but then began the development again so that it continued growth normally and was born, therefore you're just extending the pregnancy for a few years (presumably at a comfortable state - first or maybe second trimester) that that is fine - the baby isn't ultimately harmed.  Other people would say no, it's not okay, for an assortment of reasons.  If you're suggesting the fetus be kept alive basically forever (well, until the mother dies), and until then survives as basically a parasite (albeit, a parasite that doesn't borrow the car or ask for money), I think the same complaints would stand - the fetus is effectively killed by denying it life.

*** Do I want to argue it? No. Do I believe it? Pretty much.


*** And see, I don't see more abortions as necessarily bad, while it seems you do.


*** Seems kind of silly, but okay, let's do that.


*** So you're against the death penalty too then? I mean, if it's more important to protect life than the overall benefit to society?


*** I don't have a problem with circumcision, but beyond that, I'd say the people who are responsible for the unborn life should make that call. If I'm a woman, living on the street, with AIDS, and addicted to drugs, I think it'd be the nicer thing for the unborn child not to make him be born into that sort of life. Once a child is born, however, it's different, but in some cases, no life is the kinder choice.


*** You weren't speaking about maternity leave; you'd said

My point is that during the nine months of pregnancy, there is bonding time.


*** And if someone does all that, and it still fails, should they be forced to have an unwanted child? Would you call the person for whom the control didn't work careless?


*** And I'd say given that set of circumstances, the correct answer is #1. Some babies ARE just lucky. Babies born today are luckier than the ones born in the middle ages, for example. If your goal is to eradicate abortion entirely (which it certainly seems to be, based on your arguements), then this is a way to do it. It's slower than #2, I grant you, but it would work.


*** But not everyone agrees that once concepcion has occured, the fetus is "an individual entity". A parasite, granted, but "individual"? Don't think so.


*** How does a fetus directly reproduce?


*** To restate, "If you're suggesting the fetus be kept alive basically forever [...] the fetus is effectively killed". How are we denying life by keeping the fetus alive?

Actually I am, but not in the way you're thinking.  Anyone who is put on death row should just be held in jail for life with no possibility of parole.  Society is still safe, but so is the man's life (for what it's worth).



I had brought up bonding time in response to Vexen's point about maternity leave.  I know that's unclear since I didn't reference it directly in my quote, but that's what I meant.  Not to say your comment isn't correct as well, it just doesn't address the issue I was specifically arguing there.



I wouldn't call the person careless, and admitedly, sometimes bad stuff happens.  But at that point... bad stuff happens, and we still need to do what's right.  Just because I lost my job doesn't mean I can start stealing stuff.

If we're trying to generate some sort of continuum on this question though, I'd say someone who has been responsible gets 'points' towards having an abortion, if she decides to go that way.




Fair enough, but let me ask, what is your justification for saying 'babies that can be supported outside of the womb shouldn't be aborted'?



entity:  something that has a real existence; thing:
Individual: a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.

I really think we all do agree a fetus is an individual entity.  It may not be a living creature, or an individual (which refers to a person), but it is an individual (i.e. singular) entity (i.e. thing).



By hitting puberty, meeting another old fetus, bumping uglies and making a new fetus.

Keep in mind, a fetus is a word for a state, like child, adolescent, geriatric, etc.  Fetuses reproduce in basically the same way toddlers reproduce.



Alive as a fetus, sorry.  I don't think you'd say you have a life just because your heart beats, or just because you have genetic code.  Rather, you consider yourself a living human because, in part, you're self-aware, you make decisions, you grow and interact with your world.  It is the different between being alive (medically speaking) and living (philosophically speaking).  The option above denies the fetus the right to A life, but not the right to be alive.

Yes, exactly!  And a sperm or egg is just one step further down the line of that gradual change.  It's not the same thing, but they aren't entirely different either.



Is there a scientific definition of "being" then?


I think you mean to be an "animal," not "alive" here, right?  This is a working definition, but I don't think it's perfect.  Sperms fail on 3 and 4, we agree.  On 6-7 I disagree.  Sperm do respond to some stimuli, and do reproduce (by making humans as an intermediate step--just like a fetus would have to make a sperm or egg as an intermediate step in reproducing).  I'm not sure what you mean by adaptation in this case.

Note that your definition implies that mules are not animals, that a woman past menopause is no longer alive, that all female bees in a hive except the queen aren't alive, etc.

Really, it seems like you're saying sperm "are nothing" as bart put it because they don't grow or metabolize.  Is that the real, heart-of-the-matter difference that you think make it okay to kill sperm by not a fetus?  Growth and metabolism?




The last line is sort of the hook.  If keeping the fetus as it is would be denying it life, then it must not be alive yet.  At least not in the sense that a baby is.  If it's current state isn't actually "life" that takes away some of the argument for protecting it.

"Being" is a broad term, but I was hoping to refer to things which are either alive or self-aware.



No, that's for 'alive', according to the generally accepted scientific rules (at least what I could pick up from my very brief research).  You'll notice that everything down to bacteria meet all those requirements, however viruses do not (as they can't directly reproduce).




Sperm do not directly reproduce.  A sperm doesn't meet with another sperm to make baby sperm.  In fact, the sperm in question is completely gone when it 'reproduces' which would be akin to my sending my genetic code 1,000 years in the future to make a clone.  I've not directly reproduced.

Fetuses do in that the same creature that is the fetus develops, meets another creature of the same species and, together, they generate another member of that species.



It must be able to change over a period of time in response to the environment (perhaps over generations).  Humans can do this both through adopting particular behaviors and through natural selection.  I'm not sure sperm can do this...



This is referring broadly to the type of thing, not specific instances.  A human is a life form even if a specific instance of 'human' does not necessarily meet all those criteria.



I'm willing to accept that killing sperm is acceptable.  Killing a fetus is, at minimum, less acceptable.  How unacceptable is the matter of some debate.




Isn't this a question of continuum?  Wouldn't severing one part of the continuum be as bad as cutting off another?  I daresay that stealing a years worth of memories is as bad as killing a person a year before his death.  People have a right to their ENTIRE life, not just bits and pieces.

You're scueing the argument a little, katisara, about what we're saying. You treat it as if we are saying that the sperm and the egg are seperate creatures entirely from human beings and even a fetus. They are not. They are part of the life cycle of the same creature.

A fetus doesn't work as an animal or even as a living entity unless it's treated as a stage of life, much like you argue. A fetus doesn't have the immeadiate abiltiy to reproduce. It only meets that requirement if you consider it a stage of human development, not as a creature distinct from humanity. Likewise, in the earlier stages, a fetus doesn't meet the stimuli requirement either, unless you consider it a stage of development. You've taken the liberty (and, arguably, rightfully so) to treat it as it will become, rather than what it is now.

My problem is that you don't extend the same liberty to the sperm and egg. You treat them as if they are a separate being from humanity. But, if you gave them the same treatment as a stage of human development, rather than a separate species from humans altogether, they too meet every requirement to be alive, and even human.






So you'd like a situation where abortion of any kind is illegal, but those that want to do it shouldn't be impeded from having one safely. So...what's the point of making it illegal, other than to make a statewide/national declaration of "I don't like abortion!"? How, really, is this much different than what we have now?



I'd say you did, yes. You said that a serial abortionist would be a different matter. How so?

Likewise, what about men? Say, if there was a man who had was a participant in many abortions, say, hooked up with many girls over his life and many of those resulted in an abotion. Is he a different case?



No, I'm saying the implied assumption you made that someone who has an abortion or was prevented from having one somehow doesn't care for the child is very offensive and untrue in many cases. You're also indirectly infering that the difference between who has an abortion and one who doesn't is how much they care for the child, which I would disagree. It's far more complex and personal than that, and you seem to think you can paint it over with a broad stroke.

Additionally, that theory I'm sure you'd find very incorrect, because it doesn't take into consideration the maternal bond that often occurs before the child is even born. To bring it back to my sister, she had every intent on aborting the child, and then giving up after she had learned it was too late. By the time she actually gave birth, though, there was no one going to separate her from her daughter. In fact, she's often adhorrd of the idea of anyone taking her child from her. Her attitude changed, and you'll find that in many cases where adoption is planned, it's often unsuccessful for the same reason. And even a parent who'd intended to, and did, give it up for adoption, this often is a very difficult step for them, sometimes one they can't fully carry through. This is a very common occurrance in cases where adoption was planned, which is part of the reason why there is a shortage of American children up for adoption.

I think that there's enough evidense out there that shows that a woman considering an abortion does indeed care for the child, and not just a little. If it was just a little, it wouldn't be such a difficult and complex process.



But, again, you're not forcing the man to do anything. This is men's responsibility in name only. Sure, there's child support, but that only covers so much. Men get off scott-free in much of the other consiquences. A teenage man who got a woman pregnant probably wouldn't have much of a stigmatization about him, for example. A teenage woman, however, most certainly would in many circles.

Likewise, having a pregnant wife while in the work place, company probably see that as an asset to the man. Means he's probably going to work harder to make sure there's a steady income or maybe even a raise in te near future. Conversely, being pregnant in the work place probably is seen more as liability, as now they need a temporary replacement, and they will be seen as not too concerned about their job. This is a consequence such thinking places on women, really, not so much men.



So...you think abortion is okay so long as someone earns it through points? I'm not understanding this.





I'm sorry, but aren't these points contradicting? You're against the stasis idea because you want to perserve the quality of life, rather than just have them alive, but are for life imprisonment so that they are alive, even at the cost of qualitative life?



Well, it's a matter of prespective. Yes, I suppose I could look at it that way. However, I could be much more morbid if I wanted to, if were going to imagine the horrible.

Imagine this point, which was referenced by Tycho earlier. I've not had a single child in my 22 years here alive, even though I've been sexually mature for almost ten years now. Assuming I were to be as my foremothers before me, and simply destined to a life of motherhood and homemaker, or obeyed my body's desire to be as sexually active as I can get away with, how many children could I have had by now? Estimating about a child a year, I could be on my way to my 8th to 10th child by now, assuming these are successful births, which nowadays, they probably would be. Or, more reasonably, as 10 is admittedly maybe more than my body can handle, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that I could have had two, three, or four children by now.

I want you to imagine that a minute. Because I wasn't doing what my body was designed to do, and instead thinking selfishly about my own concerns in this relatively (wehn compared to being a mother of four) carefree existence, my eldest Brittiney, my second and momma's boy Tim, my tough little Rocky, and even cute baby Evan will never come to exist. And more, possibly. The little family of angels and rascals, denied for my own selfish reasons.

And that's exactly why. Selfish reasons. I could had given them life, if I really wanted to; finding a sperm donor probably wouldn't be that difficult, or even a father, if I were determined to do it. And isn't any child worth the effort. And I could probably find a way to support them too, if I tried hard enough. Even if I couldn't, there's always adoption, right? So, justifiably, I have no real reason that I've denied them life. No real excuse, other than to simply make my life easier for the time being.

Logically, why shouldn't I have made them? Life is always better than no life at all, right? Given your arguments and mine, I can think of no reason, other than to perserve my own way of life as is. But, isn't that selfish? I'm not thinking about them, only myself. Isn't their right to life more important than my right to comfort?

Having brought this to attention, do you find me horrible? Seeing as I've denied them the posibility of life, am I now a murderer?

*** I didn't actually say that; what I said was if people want some sort of demarcation between when it's okay and when it's not, that seems a good one.


*** So, my wooden chair is an individual entity, right? And the wrapped from my candy bar. And the piece of chewed gum my daughter left on the floor that got attached to the bottom of my shoe. They're all equal to a fetus, right?


*** As I understand it, toddler reproduction is a fairly rare thing, and generally some kind of felony is involved. By your definition ("a word for a state"), why don't sperm reproduce?

So if someone is pro-life, why wouldn't they support the notion of keeping the fetus alive (only as a fetus, true, but still alive)? Incidentally, the above is why I'm also in favour of euthanasia.


*** So you don't consider creating a clone of yourself to be reproducing?


*** I'm curious, do you have any statistics for this?

Which is sort of my point.  A sperm is a "being" if you define a being as something alive, but not if you define it as something self-aware.  I don't think you could prove a fetus (or even a very young baby) was self-aware, either, though.


Except the things I mentioned in the last post (female bees, mules, etc.).  Also note that the list doesn't serve as a very good test of what's alive, since it only meets the criteria once it's reproduced.  A person who never happened to reproduce wouldn't qualify as alive (or at least couldn't be said to have passed the test which proves one's aliveness).  This was sort of my whole point here--the definition of "alive" doesn't really work in all cases.  We have a good idea of what's alive and what's not in most cases, but no matter how we define it, there area always some problematic cases that just don't seem to fit.  Single celled organisms don't grow (at least not in anyway that sperm don't also grow, I would think), for example.  Most single celled organism reproduce by division.  Does the original cell still exist after that, or just two daughters?  Animals that reproduce sexually could be said to not reproduce "directly" since they have to use intermediaries like sperm an eggs (which is somewhat similar to virus' using the intermediaries of cells to reproduce themselves).


Species, like "alive" is another word that isn't actually as easy to define as we tend to think.  If you say an egg and a sperm on the same species, I could argue that they do, in fact, meet each other and together generate more members of their species.  If you argue they're not the same species, I'm guessing you'd have to use arguments that lead to men and women not being the same species.



Sperm definitely adapts via natural selection.  This is especially true in aminals like bonobos that compete mostly through sperm competition rather than competing for mates.



Again, this shows that the definition doesn't really work the way it should.  If you can't tell whether an individual is alive or not, but only a broad class of things (how do you define that class?), it's not really answering the question "is this particular thing in front of me alive or not?"  The definition usually works in most cases, but it's not really able to tell us definitely if a thing is alive or not.  Rather, we just tend to have ideas about what's alive, and what's not, and the definition is a reflection of the general properties of those thing.  To a degree, I think one could argue that "alive" is in the eye of the beholder.  To a degree, it's a subjective thing, rather than a fundamental property like mass, or charge.  Which, to a degree, is the whole problem.  A fetus, especially in the early stages, isn't something that everyone can really agree on.  It's at the fuzzy border of the spectrum (or a few spectra, really: alive-not alive, human-not human, independant whole-part of something else, etc.).  The words we use to describe it aren't precise enough, and really are subjective anyway.  We can agree on its actual, observable properties, but still disagree on the broader terms used to describe it (alive, human, whole, etc), because those broader terms are actually vague terms that work in most (but not all) cases.  It's sort of how saying something is "hot" is more vague than saying it's X degrees.  The temperature is a physical quantity that we can all agree on.  But even knowing the temperature, we might not be able to agree whether it's hot or cold out.  The temperature is purely factual, but "hot" has both more and less information in it than the temperature.  Less, because it's more vague, but more because it implies certain things (what sort of clothes you might want to wear outside, for example).  "Alive" and "human" and these other terms are sort of the same.  They're carry both more, and less information than "it metabolizes, grows, adapts, etc."  Less because in some cases it's properties might not fit the list, but more because it implies something about the way we feel about the thing in question.  When we say something is human, we're not just talking about the properties it has, but also indirectly saying something about the we should think about it.

Hmm...not really sure what my point was when I started all that, but I've surely lost it now!  Sorry for the ramble...


Yes, on this I agree.


But again, why is a single fertilized egg cell entitled to it, but not the egg and sperm themselves?  It is a continuum, as you say.  What people have a right to seems different than what a fetus has a right, which seems different to a sperm is entitled to, which seems different to what a potential person 1000 years in the future is entitled to right now.  I woulds say that it's not obvious that a fetus has a right to be born, anymore than a sperm has a right to fertilize an egg.

A sperm is part of the life cycle.  It is not a living thing, however.



That's not true.  Keep in mind, bacteria respond to stimuli.  You may be thinking of stimuli you consciously respond to, like being poked or hearing sounds, etc.  But a fetus will respond to things like chemical changes, changes in heat and so on.



They are not separate from humanity, in that they are generated by and contribute to humanity, and are human cells.  However, they are not a 'stage of development in that the sperm that contributed to me ceased to be a sperm and literally fell to pieces.  Unless of course you consider a ham sandwich a 'stage of development', which I think is stretching it a little bit.

A sperm is basically just designed to deliver its data payload, then disintegrate.  You might be able to argue that the egg has some protection requirements, since it is that cell which ultimately splits and becomes the fetus, but I don't think anyone goes around intentionally killing eggs.

Also worth mentioning, I don't think that natural death, by age, stillbirth, etc. are unethical, so a woman's natural period is not unethical either, even if you do consider an egg on the same level as a fetus.  Creatures have to die; the point is, it's not our job to choose when that time is.



1)  It will drive away the law-abiding.  That alone would result in a major change.
2)  While it would not allow the doctor to be arrested, it would allow the patient to be.  The patient would still need to seriously consider whether she is willing to risk jail time.

The argument for legalizing abortion is 'they'll do this thing, which may be terrible, regardless, so we may as well make it safe'.  Fair enough, so then our goal is to simultaneously make it illegal and put tools in place to drive people from selecting that option at all, without making the method of going to a clinic any worse as a consequence.  If the latter decreases the effectiveness of the former, it may simply be a necessary compromise.



Ah, she's not dangerous to society at large, but she's clearly dangerous to the series of fetuses she keeps killing.  And clearly whatever the current punishment is is insufficient.  That isn't saying that jail time is necessary (although perhaps it is), but something above the standard punishment needs to be applied.



Was he aware he got those women pregnant?  If not, he's responsible for child care, as appropriate, but not for the charges of the woman choosing an abortion independently.

Ultimately, a man who was never consulted or even aware of the situation isn't responsible any more than my wife using my car to rob a bank makes me responsible for that.  However, if that man encouraged, paid for and otherwise supported each of those girls, he's guilty of conspiracy.



That wasn't what I intended to say.  However, if you care SUFFICIENTLY for the fetus, you won't get an abortion.  No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion (and if that is the case, there are other laws being broken).  It comes down to the mother's choice ultimately, doesn't it?  Isn't that what the whole idea is?  I'd have to imagine if the result of legalizing abortion was to result in women not having a choice about whether or not they get one, it would be a good deal less important.

So like Mr. Crinkles possibly having to move or my having to decide between having a nice house or private school for my kids, it comes down to priorities.  If the mother is sufficiently invested in the fetus, she won't abort.

I think you'll have a very difficult time convincing me that women who care the world for their unborn child would go have an abortion anyway.  I mean, if you give me a series of examples of women who hae physical jobs or whatnot and therefore 'need' an abortion in order to keep that job, isn't that just saying she cares more about what her job represents than about the fetus?  It's a decision based on values, but SHE applies the values to things.  To say otherwise is suggesting people intentionally choose what they want less, which sounds very odd.



I think that bond applies completely.  That would be part of 'care'.




Oh, no question, it won't apply to all cases and possibly not even to a majority of cases.  But for those women who never really change their priorities, it's still an option.



Again, I'd never argue otherwise.  But ultimately the woman chooses what she believes to be more valuable or important.



I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.



I can't exactly change cultural mores, but legally I'd say he'd now be bound to her and the child, and for the rest of his life he'd be paying for their wellbeing.  I wouldn't exactly call that 'scott free'.



No, I'm saying if we settled on having abortions based on understanding things as being a continuum, like Tycho was settled, someone taking all the right measures and just being 'unlucky' should be considered and add some leniency.



The person in prison got there because of his own decisions.  The fetus made no such decisions, and therefore deserves the full spectrum of choices available to him or her.

That said, my concern for death row/life imprisonment isn't so much one of preserving the quality of the prisoner's life.  People have to suffer the consequences of their actions, after all.  The prisoner chose the actions which got him in trouble.  But there are other considerations there as well.




You'd most likely be looking at, at most, a child every other year (10 months in uteru, and most women aren't especially fetile during the first 6-10 months following birth).  Also, you wouldn't start birthing kids at 12 or you'd die.  Most women historically speaking didn't start until 16 or later.  If you started at 16, you'd be looking at a measly 3 kids right now, on average, but probably closer to 15 before menopause.

But I do understand what you're driving at.


Lack of a baby by omission is different from by comission.  It's one thing for there never to be anything to become a baby, another to take a developing baby and kill it.

But the line keeps moving, which would suggest to me it's not a good line to use.



They are all individual entities.  They are equal to a fetus in that measure.  However, they are not equal to a fetus in other measures (for instance, the chair is better for sitting on).



I'm just an overgrown toddler :P



Because sperm don't make more sperm.  They make a baby who then goes on to make sperm.  i.e. sperm don't generate sperm, they generate babies.  They don't directly reproduce.




Most pro-life people would say because the fetus, while technically alive, is being actively denied life.



I'd consider it being reproduced :P  It's not me making the new me, it's someone else (in that example).  If I made the clone myself, I'd be reproducing.  If I sent my genetics forward, someone else is reproducing me.



I've talked with two families who have had difficulties finding children to adopt.  I'm sure you can find this on your own via google, if you care to look.

A sperm is not a life form.  It is living tissue, but it isn't alive in the sense that you (or at least I) am driving for.  A fetus is a life form, however.  I think the English language is failing us.




It doesn't require that all instances of the species reproduce, only that some do.  Bee drones don't reproduce, but bees do.  Mules don't reproduce, but horses and donkeys do.  Maybe not all fetuses don't reproduce, but if you took a sampling of all fetuses right now, the majority will.



It's testing in the general sense - have other members of this species reproduced?  Might it reproduce at some point?  If you'd prefer 'reproductive capability', I'm sure we can agree on that.  Ultimately though, the test isn't paying attention to specifics, either a specific moment in time or a specific example of the species.  However, plenty of fetuses have gone on to make new fetuses, but no sperm have successfully made new sperm.



Sperm are split off from a parent cell which is not a sperm.  However, single-celled organisms reproduce from a parent cell splitting that was that same type of single-celled organisms.  If sperm could continue to split and therefore reproduce, they would qualify in that sense, but they don't.  Single-celled organisms do grow, otherwise they'd be unable to hit the size necessary to split.  Sperm I don't believe do that.



Sperm and eggs are tissue from that animal, part of that animal.  It's like saying it's not really me typing because the only thing that comes into the contact with the keyboard is layers of dead skin.  If you're going to argue that, you're going to have to define what 'I' am.  Presumably it includes my dead skin, my internal organs, the gross stuff that comes out of me to a point and so on.



Egg and sperm aren't species because they aren't alive (see above).



No they don't, because the sperm don't make more sperm.

Are you arguing that males who produce all bad sperm therefore enforce a natural selection on sperm reproduction?  That's a bit of a stretch.  If anything, that's the sperm-generating cells adapting, not the sperm itself since, again, the sperm only carry the genetics from their generative cells.  They themselves don't reproduce to make more sperm.  And since any mutation to the sperm's payload itself would be too late to change the form of the sperm in question, it doesn't evolve - the mutation is passed onto the sperm-generating cells of the next generation, and the sperm are a result only of that.

It's not the sperm that are evolving under natural selection, but the cells that generate them.




If you really want me to sit down and form a definition for a single case, not to a category of thing, I can do so.  It would be fairly trivial, but certainly frustrating.




"Alive" is a human-defined word applied to certain complex systems.  If worded properly, we can shape it to apply to whatever we want it to.  It's subjective only in that, like all human-defined words, its definition was set by humans.




Because you're trying to apply an absolute, yes or no, to a continous thing, and a fertilized egg shows some qualities, no matter how small, that don't appear in its constituent parts.

I don't think it's the langauge, so much as human thought, and our tendancy to come up with complex ideas like "alive," rather than using a list of simpler terms like "growing, reproductive, etc.  You agree that a sperm is living tissue (or, at least some of them are--others die, which again seems to indicate that they are alive), but say it's not a "life form."  Again, I think any definition of "life form" that makes that true would also lead to other things not being "life forms" that you would normally think were.


Actually, I'd wager that the majority of fetuses won't reproduce, especially if you include non-human fetuses (and if you don't consider them to be "life forms," that opens another can of worms), but I think that'll get us down the wrong path anyway.  What percentage of the group has to be able to reproduce to make every member "alive?"  50%?  1%?  Seems somewhat arbitrary, unless it's 100%, or "at least one."  However, there are further problems with this.  The biggest is how to define "species," which isn't as easy as you might guess.  Just because one fetus is alive, how do we know that they all are?  Another problem with the group idea is that you could form a group that had very much not alive members.  Is a dead fetus alive just by nature of being part of the group "fetuses?"  I think a test that only works on a group of things, but not on an individual will actually lead to more problems than we had already.  How about the group "one man, all his sperm, two cats, and a rock?"  Are the members of this "species" alive?  If it doesn't qualify as a species, why not?  What about a group of 10 male humans?  Are members of that "species" alive?


I would disagree.  Sperm have successfully made new sperm plenty of times.  It's what they do!  If you say otherwise, would you say that a male human has ever successfully made a new male human?  If so, how is a male human requiring a female human to reproduce all that different from a sperm needing an egg to reproduce?  If not, on the other hand, does this imply that male humans aren't alive?


Okay, but by this ferns aren't alive, because they reproduce in two generations (haploid/diploid), neither of which makes copies of themselves, but rather make copies of the other phase (sporophytes make gametophytes and vice versa).


But doesn't, you're arguing, include a fetus growing inside you?  What is the difference?  A unique set of DNA?  If that is what you consider to be the critical difference, consider that it would be, in theory, possible for a woman to give birth to a clone of herself (inject her DNA into an egg cell, and implant the egg cell, etc.).  Would that fetus, since it had non-unique DNA still be part of the mother rather than an independent life form?  If, on the other hand, it's the complete set of cromosomes that makes it alive, regardless of whether or not they're unique, why isn't every cell inside my body an independent life form?




An egg isn't alive either?  On which of the criteria does it fail?  I would say that most people consider sperm and egg to be alive (at least the ones that haven't died yet), and that they are the same species.  Definitely its possible to have sperm and eggs of different species (dog and cat, for example).



Why not?  Because there's an intermediate stage between them?  I'd say the same holds true of male animals as well.


Individual animals don't evolve during their own life time.  All that you say above applies to animals as well.  For example, a mutation in a sex cell of a male won't affect him, but only his offspring.  Remember, sperm cells carry a half-set of DNA.  The mutations of the father (or, about half the mutations of the father), go along with it.  If a sperm carries a mutation that alters sperm behavior, the sperm it reproduces (by creating the intermediate step of an adult) would have that mutation, and would be affected.

Again, I would say sperm do reproduce more sperm, in the same way that humans reproduce more humans--by using an intermediary steps of a sperm and egg.


Both are subject to selection pressure.  What I'm saying here is that it's possible (though very strange) to view the adult human as part of the sperm phenotype--the genetic information in a sperm has an effect on the world by creating an adult human, which produces copies of the original sperm.

If we're to get really specific, it's actually genes which are reproducing.  Everything bigger than that, be they sperm or adult humans, are just vehicles that the genes ride around in.  Genes that make sperm swim poorly or adult humans die young can both be selected against, and genes that make sperm swim well or an adult attractive to the opposite sex can both be selected for.  Both the sperm and the adult will carry the same genes (well, the sperm will carry half the genes) in each case.  A sperm that carries a gene for an ugly adult will be bad at making more sperm in the long run in the same way that an adult that carries a gene for sperm that can't swim will be bad at making more adults in the long run.


I think it would be anything but trivial.  If you think you can do so, you really should try, as if you can, a lot of people will be very interested in what you come up with.  I'm guessing, though, it won't be nearly as trivial as you think, if you want to fit all the things we normally consider to be alive.




No, I don't think that's quite it.  If an alien race showed up on earth tomorrow, it might be very difficult to tell if they were alive.  If we create a computer program with greater-than-human intelligence, it will be hard to say if it's alive.  We can certainly come up with definitions, which will settle these things one way or the other, but that's not the issue.  Most of us think of "alive" as being a pretty fundamental property, rather than just a description.  We can come up with definitions, but really, we judge those definitions on how well they fit our pre-conceved ideas rather than the other way around.  For example, if you defined "alive" in such a way that made mice not living, we would think the definition was poor, rather than thinking mice weren't alive.  We 'know' mice are alive, and any definition that says otherwise is faulty.  It's one of these words where we know what it means, even if we can't define it.



Okay, I can accept that.  But why that particular point?  Is it arbitrary, or is there some reason that must be the right point?  If it's arbitrary, I can handle that (though not agree with it).  I'll need some more convincing, though, that it's not just arbitrary, however.

*** Actually, my arguement is that if God gave people free-will, what right do other people have to take it away? Beyond that, I'm not sure what your last sentence ("If the latter ... a necessary compromise.") means. Can you expand/rephrase it, please?


*** Now see, on this one, I agree with you. People who use abortion as a form of birth control should be punished. As opposed to jail time, however, I'd suggest a LOT of community service at an abortion clinic.


*** Exactly. It's that pesky free-will thing God invented.


*** Would you be willing to consider the idea that a woman might choose an abortion and then, after being denied (for whatever reason), she could come to change her mind, and value the child where previously she didn't?


*** Why not? It's like the drinking age. It used to be 18, then moved to 19, then 21. I'd not be surprised if it eventually gets raised to higher than that. We don't have to establish a "once and for all" rule, we just need to establish a rule which works here and now. We can review it later and see if it's still working, or if it needs to be changed.


*** Well, but people don't make more people. They make an egg and some sperm, which then combine to make more people. Wouldn't this be non-direct reproduction?


*** So they're not so much pro-life as pro-a-certain-quality-of-life?


*** Well it's just that I keep hearing there's a shortage of children to adopt, and I'm wondering if the people claiming this are just meaning there's a shortage of children they're willing to adopt.

A 'statistically relevant' number - at least one, plus enough to weed out statistical anomalies (a rock falling and splitting into two smaller rocks isn't sufficient to count as reproduction).  A bacteria where only one out of a million successfully reproduces is, however.




Not sure where you're going with this, or if you really think this is a serious issue.



A fetus shares 50% or less of its DNA with its mother.  An egg shares 100% of its DNA with its mother.  Even a cancerous lesion shares 99.999% of its DNA with its host.  I would argue, when the item shares less than half of its genetic code with you, it's pretty clearly not part of you.




There would clearly have to be other conditions as well.  DNA is the easiest and quickest measure because the number of women who implant themselves with their own clone is fairly low.

A fetus also has clear physical demarkations - it has its own body, and within hours after implantation is clearly a separate entity (note:  again, entity doesn't imply life or anything like that, but simply that this is a clearly distinct thing).

I'm not really sure how we got down this track, however.  I think overall we agree.  You yourself have been arguing the idea of a continuum.  Obviously, that continuum requires a beginning somewhere.  I would argue the beginning of development into a baby would be either conception or implantation, when you have a distinct entity there to develop.  Do you disagree with that?  Do you feel that a single sperm, which is going to be disintegrated, is part of that continuum?  That a ham sandwich, part of which will become a sperm to become a baby is part of that continuum?

The majority of your post is on that continuing debate, which I'd really rather leave behind if possible, since at this point it seems mostly to be semantics and distracting from the primary point.  If you really and truly feel that a sperm is somewhere in the fetus/baby continuum and therefore we need to settle that, I'll return to it, but otherwise I'd really rather let it die on the assumption that a fetus is clearly on that continuum and a sperm is not.




(Underlined for emphasis.)

That's my point.  We said 'there are some things which are similar to us, and some things which are not' and decided to draw a line.  We decided that these similar systems, mice and plants and whatnot, should all be grouped together, in contrast to everything else in the universe.  Most people frankly don't care about that boundary (virii vs. bacteria).  If the scientific community decided to define virii as being alive, it wouldn't change how a virus operates.  Meanwhile, if the scientific community redefined life and that definition excluded mules, most people would continue on with their lives and the dictionary would just list an additional defintion for the word, it wouldn't be the first time.

If aliens came down or we found an AI, whether they're 'alive' or not is basically up to Webster.  The AI doesn't care, it will operate the same either way.  Mostly we just need someone to define the boundaries for us so we can get back to work.




Because a fetus is a single entity and, as it happens, the same entity which later is a baby.  An egg and a sperm (lost amid a mass of other sperm and eggs) aren't a 'single entity' they're, at minimum, two entities.  And neither one of those two entities is just a baby in another state (any more than my muscles are just a ham sandwich in another state).  The remains of the sperm and egg are unrecognizable when assimilated into the fetus.

The fetus shares a number of characteristics with us that we don't share with an egg or a fetus.  The egg and sperm both have their natural lifecycles, which end in death after about 5 days, whereas the fetus' lifecycle ends at around 70 years, marking a clear difference.  The egg and sperm don't grow any further and are never capable of sentience.  A sperm won't grow up and get a job in marketing.  A fetus will.  And there's nothing you can do to change that (as a full grown person is not a sperm, the sperm was destroyed when its payload was delivered).

Finally, sperm and eggs are both parts of, and therefore belong to, people.  They share 100% of their DNA with a single other person, are produced by that person.  A fetus shares 50% or less of its DNA with any other person, and all cells after the first are produced by the fetus.  The fetus is also an early state of what we recognize as an individual person, belonging to himself and no other person.

I should have clarified, AN argument.  I was trying to address a particular set of concerns only.



We want to A) limit the number of abortions while B) not making them more dangerous.  If B harms A, that is acceptable as part of the compromise.  I think my suggestion addressed both, however.




Keep in mind, free will is not the same as consequence-free will.  I still have the ability to kill you, thanks to free will, but I don't think anyone here would argue that that action shouldn't carry jail time.  Ultimately, making abortion legal or illegal does little if anything to inhibit the woman's free will.



I'd consider it, but I don't think it would somehow disprove my argument.  Her values changed, and that will happen.  There was a point before where she cared for her fetus, but cared more for other things, then later that reversed.  But the point is, at some point during that reversal, she changed her mind.



You do make a good point that it could be changed, however that line is still fairly arbitrary.  Why not just set the line at no abortions (or any abortions) and see how that works?



I would consider my sperm part of me, like my fingerprints, my retinas, etc.  So no, I'd consider that direct.



Life means more than just metabolism :)  Again, this is where language gets confusing (and supporting what I said to Tycho above!)  We have many understandings of the word 'life'.



I can assure you, not these people.  What one told me is firstly, there really is a huge drop in the number of 'unwanted' babies.  Secondly, the system has been changed and resulted in the biological parent having a good deal more say in who they choose.  So unless you're good looking and rich, odds of your getting picked are low.

A fetus is part of the life cycle. It is not a living thing, however.

This is pretty much the argument you're giving me. From my perspective, everything that makes an embryo a living thing (which you've designated it is, as from conception, it's called an embryo, not a fetus), the egg and sperm share as well.



And you say I'm stretching it... Regardless of whether or not sperm disintegrates, it's part of the development, and directly so, not this remote area of contribution such as food. Each of us came from a sperm and an egg, directly, even more directly than we came from our parents. So, that's where I choose to start the continum. Granted, you can argue that's an arbitrary designation, and maybe you're right, but it seems that the opposing side is offering nothing but arbitrary designation as well. Simply a "life starts here, end of story" matter.



Most certainly they do try to cause an egg to die, albiet in a passive form. Once the egg leaves ovum, the only thing that will continue it's life is being fertilized, then implanted. We have designed much of contraception to interfere with that process and prevent that from happening, and thus, cause it to either die off naturally, or to prevent them from ever maturing, which arguably is the same reason why the stasis idea is wrong. So, to that degree, the same reason abortion is unethical, contraception is equally so.



That, of course, assumes that abortion is wrong and unethical. That would be the only reason our goal would be similar to what you describe it is. However, you, nor really anyone, has yet to prove definitively that it is.



Why? Why does punishment need to apply, or even jail time? You just said, she's not a threat to society.



She can care the world for it. Again, there are plenty of mothers who had every intention of aborting the child, and, even though it didn't happen, still care like any parent would for it, sometimes more. There are plenty of examples of women who took the utmost care in trying to prevent pregnancy, end up pregnant, and still making good mothers. And, I feel there's plenty of evidense to show that much of the time, when an abortion is chosen, it is considering what's best for the child. Just because one doesn't have the same beliefs as you doesn't make them unethical.

Likewise, I think there's plenty of evidense to show of parents who don't care much for their children at all, but still choose not to abort or give it up for adoption. It can simply be a matter of their beliefs, rather than any real concern for the child. If a woman chooses to not have an abortion on the basis so that she can feel better about herself, how is that 'not' every bit as self-concerned as the one who has one to preserve her life style.

I don't like to repeat myself much, but it seems like I have to constantly. This is a very complex and personal process, and to give it this broadstoke like you do doesn't respect it as that, but treats it as a matter you can sum up in a matter of seconds.



This was about the theory you presented that a woman that would choose an abortion should have no problem with also choosing an adoption. As I said, the theory was incorrect, as adoption gives an extended period of bonding, making it, in many cases, a much more unlikely process than abortion.



Oh, I disagree. By erecting laws that would punish women for having an abortion, you would most certainly be forcing them to make a choice of being a law abiding citizen and becoming a mother, or maintaining their lifestyle and becoming a criminal. You are most certainly forcing them to consider a new consequence in seeking an abortion. It's not like you're rewarding those who choose not to have an abortion, where I would argue that isn't forcing anyone. But, "keep the baby, or jail time" is most certainly forcing the option in most cases.



How are they different? If I'd choosen to do as my body was designed, there would be extra lives on this earth, lives that are special and irreplacable. If I had chosen such an option, they would have been alive today. Any now they never will be. I've denied them life, based on my choice. That is no different than abortion.

There most certainly were things that would become a baby, if I chose that aveune. I have eggs, plenty of them. Finding sperm wouldn't be that difficult either. I've simply lived my life in a way so as to intentionally prevent them from serving their purpose. It's not simple happenstance, that it's not a concern at all, and I just haven't met the circumstances required. I've actively chosen not to put a child on this earth. And, as a result, beings that could have been were denied that chance to ever be. At least an embryo or fetus got so far as fertilization, these weren't even that lucky.

So, again, I ask. How is it any different? Prove to me that my choice to prevent life isn't the same as another.

It is completely different.

Let's say you go out today and kill your neighbor with a butcher knife.  Are you suggesting that is the same as not trying to reproduce at every available opportunity?

On the one side, you are snuffing out an innocent life.  On the other side, you are determining not to create a life.  Creation and destruction are not the same thing.

That would depend on your argument. If you believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, then, yes, this would be exactly like killing your neighbor. It is murder.

What makes killing an embryo/fetus arguably horrible is not snuffing the life that is. If you got an abortion at the 8th week, I mean, it's a 1cm creature at this point, that hardly even resembles anything human besides a vauge sense of eyes and a spine starting to grow. But that can resembe any number of creatures at that point. The offense is preventing it's potential, denying it life for what it could be eventually, which is a fully formed living person with all the things that entails.

By the same token, by choosing not to have a kid when I could, I'm denying that same potential. Even if I'm not in a good position right now, there have been countless important figures through history that emerged through poverty.Even if the child won't have any real importance through the history of events to come, there's still that innate value everyone has as a person. And, as pro-lifers often argue, all life has a value and should be protected. In that sense, why are we not creating as many children as possible? Sure, a woman might not want to, but we've determined already that, compared to the value of life and the potential of every child, her choice pales in comparison. And every child we refuse to have when we could is a precious life that we have denied to this world as well.

When I kill someone, I'm denying that the potential, violating the right to life that person has, and making everyone's lives who's impacted by that individual ,or would have been, a little less bright. When I have an abortion, also denying that potential, violating the right to life there, and making everyone's life who would have been impacted by that person to be a little dimmer. And, when I choose not to have a child when I could, I'm denying that same potential, violating the right to life that being would have had, and making everyone's life who would have been impacted by that child a little more dim.

However, if I'm underestanding katisara correctly, having an abortion isn't akin to murder, but it's on the same scale. By that token, perhaps not creating a kid is even lower on that, but for the same reasons, it's still denying life, denying a person who would have existed the chance to live.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:07, Wed 11 June 2008.

*** Well ... <grin>


*** Well, we had no abortions before, and it didn't go all that well. Now it seems to be at any abortions, and your side is all upset about that. I'm suggesting we put the line somewhere in the middle, where, while no one is totally pleased, at least no side is completely losing out either.


*** Okay, so what is the pro-life definition of the word?


*** What about children which are no longer babies? Are there no orphans above the age of two?


*** Which again brings us back to orphans, who don't have bio-parents to cause problems. Or, too I'd think, there's kids whose parents are in prison for various things. Is America suddenly short of them?

     On another note, what (if anything) is the difference between an embryo and a fetus? Or are they (at least for the sake of this discussion) essentially the same?
This message was last edited by the player at 03:16, Wed 11 June 2008.

But "statistically relevant" is somewhat vague as well.  This is sort of my point.  In the vast majority of cases, it's clear if something is alive or not, without ever going to the definition.  But in cases where it's not clear, the definition isn't as precise as we would like.



It's still this issue with the definition of life, and pointing out that it's not perfect for certain things, and thus shouldn't be what we use to set the law.






Which leads to the next question:


[emphasis added by Tycho]
Which shows that DNA isn't really the issue, but just a simple (but not perfect) test for checking something more fundamental.  You can say "look at it's DNA!  clearly it's a different thing!"  But if you then say "well, even if it's DNA is exactly the same, it's still clearly a different thing!" you sort of undermine your own position.  It's only "clearly" a seperate thing because you're sure it is.  The things you use to point this out aren't what make you sure, but rather things you use to argue your point.  That is what I'm trying to get accross here.


I don't think there needs to be a begining of a continuum (though there could be one).  The real numbers are a continuum, though there isn't a beginning for them, for example.  I would include a sperm an egg as part of the developement of a person.  And, I suppose, yes, food would also be part of that continuum, though to such a small degree that it'd only be in an academic sense, I guess.  For the most part, I have no problem treating conception as implantation as a beginning, but if we then treat that as being equal to everything that comes after it, then we've lost the concept of a continuum.  More to the point, I guess I'm saying that an fertilized two minutes ago is more similar, in my opinion, to an egg with a sperm bumping into the outside of it than it is to a baby, and should be treated as such.  What I'm arguing is that we shouldn't see that transition as a huge change, but rather one of a long series of very small changes, none of which, on their own, makes much difference, even though lots of them all added up do make a large difference.


I would say it is on the continuum.  We can drop it if you like, but my point, again, is that because it's a continuum, we shouldn't be looking for some magical break spot where things change 100% like a switch.  What I'm saying is that the whole process is like a dial, turning very slowly.  Treating a three-second old fetus as fundamentally different from the egg and sperm it was seconds ago isn't viewing it as a continuum.  It's just getting us back to the whole "life starts here--no, it starts here!" debate, which doesn't seem to get anyone very far.


But in this case, things won't just go on as the otherwise would, which is my point.  People are using the definition as an argument.  Once we reach a point where the debate starts involving things like "We can kill sperm because it's not alive, but we can't kill a fetus because it is" then the definition of "alive" isn't purely academic anymore.  It's not just semantics at that point.  What we're really discussing here, is how we should treat certain things, and part of the debate is over whether or not they're "alive."  We need to realize that "alive" is actually a somewhat vague term, and we need to be careful not to read too much into the arbitrary place where we draw the line.  Like you say, virus keep on being viruses, whether we think they're alive or not, and mules will keep on being mules whether we think they're alive or not.  But how we treat mules and viruses may depened heavily on how we define "alive."  Again, it's a problem of a sharp cutoff being applied to a continuum.  We think things either have to be 100% alive, or 0%, with nothing in between.  And this gets us into trouble with those things that are actually somewhere in between, because we end up disagreeing about which side of the boundary they should be placed on, and thus which side of our yes/no treatment they get.


Again, though, how we treat the AI or the aliens may depend very heavily on what Webster decides, even though what should really be determining our actions are the properties of the AI or aliens, not an arbitrary definition.





Again, I think we've lost our idea of the continuum here.  You're viewing the fetus as 100% completely different from the sperm and egg, but 100% completely the same as the person it will be 70 years later.  I would say a sperm isn't destroyed when it's payload is delivered, it simply undergoes a change (or merger, more precisely).  The fetus still has all the DNA the sperm had, so to say its completely unrecognizable is false.  I could say the fetus is just a new stage in the sperm's life cycle.


And see, again we've lost the idea of a continuum.  Because it's an "early state" of a person, you conclude that it "belongs to himself an no other person."  You're treating the "early state" as equal to a person, rather than equal to "an early state" of something.  You're seeking to treat it as what it may become, rather than what it is, while seeking to do just the opposite for the sperm and egg (by saying they stop existing as soon as they come together, and by treating them as not being "an early state" of the process).  You're still treating it as a switch, rather than a dial.

I've spent several hours and at least a full page justifying my position.  If you want to dismiss it with a handwave you can, but I'm not going to respect that position.



Again, I have a full page of justification for that particular point chosen.  Tycho just brought up the same point and I wrote three or four paragraphs justifying my position.  Please don't bring up the same point again when I've just written it out.



That argument really doesn't work.

Say there's an intersection near where I live which is dangerous.  If someone crashes and dies, is it my fault I didn't interfere?

The egg being released and dying is a process that happens almost regardless as to what I do naturally.  I don't bear responsibility for it any more than I bear responsibility for not running out at every green light to shout at people to slow down.



Someone who only kills family members isn't dangerous to society at large (since most of society isn't his family).  Should he not be punished?






I don't know if you're reading what I'm saying at this point.  What you are writing perfectly supports what I have already said.



Granted, if you're talking about the sort of person who thinks if one's baby is born with a severe birth defect it's better to kill it than let it live, in that case you may be right.  That person thinks she is doing the baby the favor of suicide rather than letting it suffer.  But I suspect those people are in the minority.



I never argued otherwise, and there's no guarantee that a woman has any particular concern for a baby she chooses to birth.



I don't think I said it should be 'no problem', but it is a viable option for women who aren't willing to raise a child, but won't or can't have an abortion.



I'm forcing them to make a choice?  Weren't they 'forced' to make a choice before?  Seems like I'm just altering the choice.  That isn't taking away anyone's free will, both options are still open, they're just different.



As Heath said, they are different.  Again, actively working to end a life which has already started is different than passively allowing a life to never start at all.  I'd have to consider this self-evident.  Are you seriously arguing if you don't get pregnant whenever you have the chance, you may as well kill people too because you've already done the worst thing possible?  Please do be straight with me, if you seriously are arguing that, I'll address it, but otherwise I think it's pretty clear to everyone that isn't the case.



1)  You first, prove to me that abortion is different from murder :)
2)  Scroll up over the past twenty or thirty posts and read what I've already written.