In one of his skits, Colbert said of Bush that he “…believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday, REGARDLESS of what happened on Tuesday.” Man, did that ever sum up George Jr. With all the clamor following “Sicko” for expanded health care coverage (which, incidentally, the Republicans had previously shot down during the Clinton administration, in spite of extensive census data showing the majority of Americans were in favor of it), Congress makes this tiny little token effort, and WHAM! Out comes the veto.
PS, don’t just read the headline, you lazy Generation Me internet browsers – look at the actual article. It sums up the emperor’s…err…administration’s pseudo-arguments for the fore-casted veto, and takes them apart, one by one - with the use of those annoying technicalities which ivory-tower-elitist Liberals refer to as “facts” (something Bush never likes the issue to be clouded with.)
Good. Because didn’t all the protect the environment people say we had too many people especially in Africa and that malaria and other diseases were a good way to thin the herd? Besides I hate children. I guess I will vote Republican again after all. Little fuckers!
Healthcare? Who needs healthcare? Sick or injured? Tough it out! Lose an eye? You got a spare. Hey, if it kills ya, that’s just nature’s way of weeding you out of the gene pool! If it hurts or inconveniences you, quitcher whinin’! At least you’re not among the weeded!
I’m somewhat wary of programs that offer medical care to the children of the disadvantaged. This may be mainly because, in my area of the country at least, there are many people who are far too ‘disadvantaged’ to continue having the astonishing amount of children they are having. In fact, I’m more in favor of economic good standing and ability to provide proper health care being pre-requisites to reproduction, myself.
So you’re in favor of an authoritarian government which dictates who can and cannot have children? Thanks for sharing.[/quote]
Actually, I’m ultimately for the demystification of the concept of breeding as a more inherent right than any other arbitrary action a person can take. Why exactly is the right to bear children even considered a right to begin with? The right to reproduce? The right to create human life and subject it to whatever situation the bearers of that right deem, or rather forget to even consider, proper for it to be introduced to?
Why is it a right to birth a child, a free-willed thinking human, into a stinking slum where it will hunger and die as the first and only action it ever has the chance to take, and yet people form coalitions to oppose the right to grant that same fetus a merciful and painless death? At what point can it be clearly seen that parents are birthing children into a situation in which they have no intention of ever taking the proper steps to care for them? Sure, there are social programs which confiscate the children of those who are unfit to be parents, but none to stop the parents from creating more children?
Why is it considered barbaric and authoritarian to oppose a couple having children, but socially acceptable to confiscate children from unfit couples?
I believe the right to reproduce is unalienable and self-evident, same as the right to live and be free.
I can understand how a woman in such a terrible situation –wherein her child will almost certainly die of hunger or disease- would choose to have an abortion. However, since I believe the right to reproduce is unalienable, I would leave the choice to her. Also, I think the situation is rarely so grim. More likely the child will survive, albeit in poverty. I think it is better to live in poverty than not live at all.
It is very rare for parents to have “no intention” of taking care of their children. It’s simply that poor people cannot care for their children as well as wealthier parents.
[quote]Sure, there are social programs which confiscate the children of those who are unfit to be parents, but none to stop the parents from creating more children?
Why is it considered barbaric and authoritarian to oppose a couple having children, but socially acceptable to confiscate children from unfit couples?[/quote]
I don’t know what the statistics are, but I seriously doubt that any more than a tiny percentage of children born into poverty are confiscated by the state. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If there were mass confiscations of poor children, then I would call that barbaric and authoritarian, without a doubt. As I said, I believe the right to reproduce is unalienable and self-evident. I oppose any governmental regulation of reproductive rights.
I believe the right to reproduce is unalienable and self-evident, same as the right to live and be free.
[/quote]
K. Why? What differentiates the right to reproduce from, say, the right to smoke marijuana, or the right to kill yourself, or even the right to kill others?
A noble believe to be sure, but what if the child does not share it? Of course, the child is never given a choice, nor is it consulted on the matter. Once it has the ability to decide, it’s already been born.
You have a very positive view of human nature. I can think of several families just in my own community living at or around the poverty line, with eight or nine kids, who just keep having kids because they’re too stupid, religious, or poor to use birth control.
[quote]
I don’t know what the statistics are, but I seriously doubt that any more than a tiny percentage of children born into poverty are confiscated by the state. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If there were mass confiscations of poor children, then I would call that barbaric and authoritarian, without a doubt. As I said, I believe the right to reproduce is unalienable and self-evident. I oppose any governmental regulation of reproductive rights.[/quote]
If parents cannot provide for their children, those children are taken and put into the system. At least that’s the way it works where I come from. One too many days without food, or one too many bruises and someone dials up child services. And your beliefs are fine, but if we’re going to leave this at a level of “what I believe, what you believe” then there’s really no point in discussing it further.
What differentiates the right to reproduce? What makes it special? Because we’re biologically capable of doing many things that aren’t rights, and yet reproduction is so universally revered as an inalienable right, why?
Because in the end the only purpose we have in the context of being on this planet is to reproduce (disregarding the spiritual aspect of life). If there is any “right” to be had, next to that of your own life, this would have to be it.
It’s an interesting problem. I think any clear-minded individual see that large numbers of children are born into families which cannot support them, dying perhaps after only a few short years of suffering. China’s one-baby policy from a top-down perspective looks relatively fair - a country has limited resources, an overpopulation problem, and this is how they have to deal with it to prevent mass starvation. From the other direction, especially if you happen to be a person in the position to support more than one child, it seems like a rather harsh limit on the boundaries of your own existence.
It comes down to “do whatever you want as long as you don’t fuck with anyone else”. If the population situation is such that having more than one child jeapordizes the safety of your society as a whole, even just as a contributive factor, it’s only fair to not have ten babies. If only governments could somehow be completely trusted to make accurate, non-biased judgements about such things…
I crafted a reply to this post, and pressed a button filled with promises of its appearing in the space where this one now does. However, that post, a lengthy and wordy affair, is now gone. In theory, either some technical difficulty has robbed the world of its splendor, or I have made some grievous error of etiquette, and would be foolish to repost without first ascertaining what that error was.
However, my main points were as followed.
“Necroflux’s Philosophy: Man is free to do all things until his actions specifically harm another person”
(rephrased, natch)
Okay, let’s take a look at two competing situations under this rule. For the purposes of discussion, I will define being unborn as a state of neutrality. Your quality of life is non-existent, and is therefore neither good nor bad:
Abortion
Current state of the human in question: Unborn. Non-sentient. Unable to appreciate its existence.
Net gain from the action in question: Zero.
Analysis: An unborn child who is aborted has no life to take. It has not begun to appreciate that it is alive. Hence, removing its life merely takes away something it is unaware that it has in the first place. If you own one million dollars in a safe deposit box that is unknown to you, and I steal it, you are neither richer nor poorer because of it. The asset in question is unknown to you, and hence I have done you no harm, and left your quality of life unaltered, in removing it.
Birthing into Poverty
Current state of the human in question: Born. Achieving sentience. Disadvantaged.
Net gain from the action in question: Negative
Analysis: Upon being born, a child of poverty is taken from a neutral state, and pressed into a negative one. The net gain for the child is a loss. It is born into hunger, strife, disease and poverty.
Based on the analysis of necroflux’s proposed law, birthing a child into poverty does harm another human being. Therefore, it cannot be a right. Whereas, abortion does no harm to a human being, and hence must be a right.
I do agree with gao_bo_han that were any of us to cease existing, it would be a net change for the worse. But we exist. To compare our situations to human beings which do not exist at this time is folly.
I believe there are certain rights inherent to a person that are limited only to the person exercising those rights not infringing on the rights of others. Your latter example would be a clear violation.
I have a relatively grim view of human nature actually, but I do believe in human rights and the protection thereof.
Living at or around the (American) poverty line is better than not living at all. I’ll get to your moral calculus on the subject later.
I’ll have to see some statistics on the actual percentage of children born into poverty taken away by the state. The percentage would have to be very high for me to consider this a social problem serious enough to implement birthing regulations.
True. So let’s see those stats.
I think the answer given by necroflux is pretty good. Reproduction is an essential part of our existence, perhaps even the very purpose of our existence. To restrict reproduction is to diminish the human experience.
Current state of the human in question: Unborn. Non-sentient. Unable to appreciate its existence.
Net gain from the action in question: Zero.
Analysis: An unborn child who is aborted has no life to take. It has not begun to appreciate that it is alive. Hence, removing its life merely takes away something it is unaware that it has in the first place. If you own one million dollars in a safe deposit box that is unknown to you, and I steal it, you are neither richer nor poorer because of it. The asset in question is unknown to you, and hence I have done you no harm, and left your quality of life unaltered, in removing it.[/quote]
I disagree. There is harm being done here, and that harm is removing a potential source of happiness.
[quote]Birthing into Poverty
Current state of the human in question: Born. Achieving sentience. Disadvantaged.
Net gain from the action in question: Negative
Analysis: Upon being born, a child of poverty is taken from a neutral state, and pressed into a negative one. The net gain for the child is a loss. It is born into hunger, strife, disease and poverty.
Based on the analysis of necroflux’s proposed law, birthing a child into poverty does harm another human being. Therefore, it cannot be a right. Whereas, abortion does no harm to a human being, and hence must be a right.[/quote]
You’re using circular reasoning. You assertion the conclusion in the analysis itself. Also, one of the parameters of your argument is too limiting. You only consider the immediate state of a person’s life at birth as being positive or negative, but the real question is whether the person –throughout his life- would rather have lived or not existed at all. A child born into poverty will undoubtedly suffer, but it does not follow that the sum of his life’s experiences will be more negative than positive. Birthing a child, even into poverty, can be a cumulative good, if in the end he can say he would rather have lived than not existed.
Great. You’ve stated this belief before. A restatement is pretty unnecessary at this juncture.
That’s really an unnecessary statistic for me to produce. What effect does it have on an argument about the necessity of birthing regulations? That’s an entirely different sub-point, relating to the perception of people that birthing regulations are barbaric, whereas confiscation of children is not.
You’re the one who’s trying to make it relevant to the implementation of birthing regulations. In fact, I never even implied that confiscation of children is a problem, let alone one solved by birthing regulations.
Okay, I’ll accept that as a premise. However, then it should logically follow that other essential parts of our existence be granted the same emphasis. So therefore it should only follow that something like “right to eat” is an inalienable right as well? How about right to breathe?
Can I slay a cigarette smoker to clear my air? Bomb a factory to reduce pollution? When I walk out of the grocer’s without paying, I am exercising a natural right, correct?
Wonderful, than you agree that the end effect of abortion on the unborn is neutral, since a potentially equal amount of potential sorrow is potentially removed.
I’m pretty sure I don’t. If you’re referring to my assertion that the net gain from the action in question is negative, that is my hypothesis. You know, scientific method and all that? You start with a proposed conclusion and see if it is supported by the facts.
Not at all. Once a person is born, not existing is a net loss. If you wait until the end of a person’s life to tally the scales then you might as well not tally them at all and just declare the answer outright.
It’s part of your argument that I’m addressing. If you don’t wish to discuss it, don’t bring it up.
An interesting discussion that extends beyond the scope of this conversation. We have agreed upon a premise, so we’ll press on.
No, because I do not believe that to be the case. I think the overwhelmingly majority of children born into poverty will ultimately assess their lives’ net value as positive.
Right, that’s the scientific method, but that’s not what you’re following here. You’re making the assertion a child born into poverty is born into a “negative state,” then concluding that their mothers harmed them by giving birth to them. That’s circular. You need to prove that they are entering a negative state before you can assert the existence of harm.
Let me see if I follow you here. You’re saying that a person born into poverty would have been better off not being born at all, but once he is born, he is better off existing than not existing. What conditions change in the instance of birth? I realize you believe the child goes from a neutral to a negative state, but surely death is a neutral state as well, so would it not be better to return to a neutral state? Not saying I agree with this mind you, just that your logic would seem to dictate that conclusion.
Not at all. I’m saying that you took a part of my argument, slashed it apart, and affixed it to a conclusion I never drew. This is a discussion, not a mad-lib.
No, not an interesting discussion at all, a completely pertinent point that has to do with your main premise. If merely satisfying a natural requirement is the only criteria for something to be an inalienable right, we have many more inalienable rights, in fact, perhaps enough to make a sustainable society impractical. Or, perhaps, as Occam would have us believe, the simpler explanation is that your premise is unsupportable.
Indeed they would, and yet that’s no proof of anything, as I have already explained. But, for simplicity’s sake, let me copy/paste the relevant point:
“Once a person is born, not existing is a net loss. If you wait until the end of a person’s life to tally the scales then you might as well not tally them at all and just declare the answer outright.”
The loss of a life is not the same as the prevention of one. These terms are not equal. !=.
Right.
Hypothesis: The net gain from a birth into poverty is a negative action.
Argument: An unborn human being exists in a state of neutral equilibrium. A state of poverty is a negative state. A state of sufficient resources to conduct one’s life is a positive state. These two definitions are self-evident. Thusly, a net loss from the original neutral state occurs, since the neutral state is neither rich nor poor, if a child is born into poverty. Just as introducing them into a situation where they can easily feed themselves and acquire all necessary support for the duration of their lifetime is a positive situation, and therefore a positive change.
Conclusion: Hence, birthing a human being into a state of poverty is a negative action.
I… don’t really know how I can diagram it out any more clearly for you. But I suppose I’ll try if I must do it again after this.
[quote]
Let me see if I follow you here. You’re saying that a person born into poverty would have been better off not being born at all, but once he is born, he is better off existing than not existing. What conditions change in the instance of birth? I realize you believe the child goes from a neutral to a negative state, but surely death is a neutral state as well, so would it not be better to return to a neutral state? Not saying I agree with this mind you, just that your logic would seem to dictate that conclusion.[/quote]
Ah, the root of your confusion at last. Not existing is a neutral state. Dying is a negative consequence. Once someone is alive, they have inherently something to lose in not existing once more. Let’s refer back to my previous example of the million dollar banknote.
You possess, in a box, a million dollar banknote. You have no knowledge of its existence, and it does not affect your finances or your actions.
If the banknote is stolen, no harm has befallen you. In much the same way, preventing a child from being born does no harm to it. Someone who has yet to be born has no ability to appreciate the life they do not have.
However, once you are aware of the banknote, it’s theft is harmful to you. Even if you have no means of accessing the banknote.
In this case, the child is you. In a state of unbirth you have no knowledge of the life (the banknote) and are unaffected by it. Once born (gaining knowledge of the banknote) you are affected by its loss. Regardless of whether you are born into opulence (you have access to the banknote) or into poverty (you have no access to the banknote).
Conclusion: Once you possess something, even something negative, a return to a state of unbeing is in itself a negative action. You have lost something in this case.
However, losing something, and losing the potential to have something are, and never will be, equivalent.
Odd you should call this a discussion when your sole intention seems to be to demonstrate your haughty, pretentious nature. Which you’re doing a bang up job of by the way. But it won’t impress many on here.
Is this conversation about all inalienable rights, or about birthing rights? If the latter, you have already accepted that reproduction is an essential part of our existence, and to restrict it is to diminish the human experience. A comprehensive discussion about the nature of inalienable rights is beyond the scope of this conversation. I’ll be happy to argue in favor of the right to freedom, the right of expression, the right to pursue happiness, any number of other rights, in a different thread.
[quote]Hypothesis: The net gain from a birth into poverty is a negative action.
Argument: An unborn human being exists in a state of neutral equilibrium. A state of poverty is a negative state. A state of sufficient resources to conduct one’s life is a positive state. These two definitions are self-evident. Thusly, a net loss from the original neutral state occurs, since the neutral state is neither rich nor poor, if a child is born into poverty. Just as introducing them into a situation where they can easily feed themselves and acquire all necessary support for the duration of their lifetime is a positive situation, and therefore a positive change.
Conclusion: Hence, birthing a human being into a state of poverty is a negative action.[/quote]
Once again, circular reasoning. Your hypothesis, argument, and reasoning all make the same assertion.
Oh dear me, will you please? I mean, I just love it when pretentious, condescending, arrogant jerks join Forumosa and drop these pearls of wisdom on us.
Just in case you’re actually interested in a serious conversation, I’ll address this point:
You’ll need to elaborate on what you mean by “negative state” in order for your argument to be persuasive. I can only assume you mean that the child is better off not being born than being born. But I do not think it possible to make that determination at the time of birth. To discuss whether the “state” a person is born into is positive or negative is meaningless if we do not consider that person’s future potential as well. An obscure point that the transition from nothing to a birth into poverty is negative, is not a persuasive case to restrict birthing rights, in my opinion.
Well, very interesting. We’re just rolling out the fallacies today. I suppose if this is where the personal attacks begin, then this discussion is truly at an end. I suppose it’s not like it was going anywhere in the first place. And I suppose you can say what you want about me, but at least I’ve kept my criticisms to your style of debate, rather than you as a person.
I mean, it’s possible that this is merely a cultural issue. Is it that, in your country, drawing conclusions for your opponent and then arguing against them is the highest form of debate?
Well, if your main contention is that anything that is a requirement for life becomes an inalienable right, then you have to be able to support them all. I asked what made birthing rights special. Why is giving birth different from any other action a human can take? In response, you said that anything which is a requirement for life must be an inalienable right. It would be delightful to make a broad, sweeping claim like that and not be required to back it up in any way, which is apparently what you are trying to do.
[quote]Hypothesis: The net gain from a birth into poverty is a negative action.
Argument: An unborn human being exists in a state of neutral equilibrium. A state of poverty is a negative state. A state of sufficient resources to conduct one’s life is a positive state. These two definitions are self-evident. Thusly, a net loss from the original neutral state occurs, since the neutral state is neither rich nor poor, if a child is born into poverty. Just as introducing them into a situation where they can easily feed themselves and acquire all necessary support for the duration of their lifetime is a positive situation, and therefore a positive change.
Conclusion: Hence, birthing a human being into a state of poverty is a negative action.[/quote]
Once again, circular reasoning. Your hypothesis, argument, and reasoning all make the same assertion.
[/quote]
Well, if my conclusion weren’t the same as my hypothesis it would mean that I had proven my own argument… wrong. As for poverty being a negative state, that’s pretty much unarguable, right? Are you arguing that poverty is a positive state?
Would you call this circular reasoning as well?
Hypothesis: Cookies taste good.
Argument: Cookies contain sugar. Sugar makes things taste sweet. Sweet things taste good.
Conclusion: Cookies taste good.
Because if so, I think you misunderstand what circular reasoning is.
[quote]
Oh dear me, will you please? I mean, I just love it when pretentious, condescending, arrogant jerks join Forumosa and drop these pearls of wisdom on us.[/quote]
I just love it when complacent, pretentious, arrogant jerks who have already joined Forumosa grandstand in an attempt to appeal to some kind of “us vs. them” mentality that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Actually no, I meant I could not possibly care less about that. That’s what I meant.
