Bush says he'll veto expanded healthcare for poor children

[Terensque]

In all seriousness, why do you keep posting multiple times? Is it because you’re too excitable to make a reasoned argument in one post, you feel that the use of a single post is beneath the magnitude of your greatness, or do you in fact get paid by the post to fill the forums?

In any case:

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.

I thought a “negative state” is pretty self-explanatory. A state which is negative. Which is positive. A state which is bad, not good.

I believe I’ve shown valid evidence that it is possible to make that determination at birth.

What exactly do you disagree with about my argument, aside from the fact that it is not yours?

Do you disagree that “unbirth” is a neutral state? If so why?

Do you disagree that it is undesirable to be poverty stricken? If so, why?

Do you disagree that a person with excess resources is better off than one with no resources? If so, why?

[Gao_Bohan]

I thought a “negative state” is pretty self-explanatory. A state which is negative. Which is positive. A state which is bad, not good.

You’re basing your argument for restricting birthing rights on the idea that being born into poverty is a “negative state.” That isn’t going to be persuasive unless you can demonstrate that this negative state, whatever it might be, is such a harm to the child that the mother should never have been allowed to birth him or her in the first place.

What exactly do you disagree with about my argument, aside from the fact that it is not yours?

I think it is meaningless to try and ascribe a “positive” or “negative” state to a newborn’s situation, and from this argue he should or should not have been born. Even if you are correct that being born into poverty is a negative, it is at best an obscure philosophical point. The person has far too much potential to live a normal, happy life, despite being born poor for anyone to say his mother should not have been allowed to birth him.

Do you disagree that “unbirth” is a neutral state? If so why?

Well I think that at some point in the pregnancy the fetus becomes human and should have the full protection of the law, but if we’re talking about say, the first twenty weeks, then yes I agree.

Do you disagree that it is undesirable to be poverty stricken? If so, why?

Of course I believe the best situation is one where the parents are financially stable, and I certainly believe that poverty is an undesirable situation. But where we differ is that I do not think being born into poverty is so undesirable as to necessitate birthing restrictions. Growing up poor sucks, but it doesn’t suck so much that poor kids should never have been born.

Do you disagree that a person with excess resources is better off than one with no resources? If so, why?

Well of course there are other factors to consider than wealth, but in general I don’t disagree. But as stated, being born poor is not really such a tragedy either. Certainly not so bad as to justify some kind of authoritarian birthing restrictions.