tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post7081312128829576747..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: Politics and "Purity"Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-20651154648491623442008-02-17T22:44:00.000-07:002008-02-17T22:44:00.000-07:00Good evening, Dr. Groothuis, and thank you for you...Good evening, Dr. Groothuis, and thank you for your response. <BR/><BR/>While I appreciate your response, I cannot say that I appreciate the arguments you make against publicly-funded healthcare. I have heard them often, and they reflect typical, fear-mongering conservative attitudes on the subject. <BR/><BR/>Also, your remark that the majority is not always right does not mean that it is never right. In this case, I believe it is. <BR/><BR/>Now, on to specifics problems with your statements about publicly-funded healthcare. <BR/><BR/>"Problems include: rationing, long waits, people not getting needed treatments, and so on."<BR/><BR/>As I already said, I am not denying that some rationing exists, but no one in countries that have universal coverage must turn to prayer as their sole resource against getting sick. Since the value of prayer as a healthcare technique has already been shown to be deficient, I would rather have some form of coverage for everyone, than Porsches for those who can afford them and foot-power for those who can't (a good analogy for private health insurance.) <BR/><BR/>Besides, many have made the (in my opinion) correct argument that a system which arbitrarily excludes a large portion of the population from getting healthcare (or one that passes the cost of the sickest and poorest on to taxpayers, who already spend money on their own health insurance) is itself practicing a deceitful form of rationing, with the further aggravating factor that it is a form of economic discrimination. The fact that Christians do not rise up in arms about such a blatant form of social injustice, directed at the poorest of us, is one of the biggest mysteries of our times. <BR/><BR/>"Moreover, there is a basic loss of economic freedom: you cannot choose your provider, when and where to pay, and so on."<BR/><BR/>This is false. Completely. I don't know which system you are thinking about, but I know it does not apply to Italy, nor it applies to France, so I would like to see data to support your claim. And, in any case, how is economic freedom of any use to those who cannot afford the prohibitive cost of comprehensive health care? In Italy, France, and I am sure other nations as well, if you have extra money to spend, you can pay to see the specialist of your choice, at an added cost, which is only fair.<BR/><BR/>"[Health care] is absorbed by the state. The state does a better job protecting from violence and enforcing justice than trying to provide for everyone."<BR/><BR/>That is a very dark view of the job of the government that you project. Under the outgoing Republican administration we have actually gotten the worst of both worlds: intrusive government that has began to sell security to for-profit entities that operate outside the constraints that the military and public police have to respect, and fewer much needed social services. The fact that the current administration combines the worst that government can offer does not mean that we have to give hope up on what government can do in a civil society.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-85434357096420120332008-02-17T20:51:00.000-07:002008-02-17T20:51:00.000-07:00Fab:Majorities are often wrong. So, you need subst...Fab:<BR/><BR/>Majorities are often wrong. So, you need substance to back up the claim that they are better than we are.<BR/><BR/>Problems include: rationing, long waits, people not getting needed treatments, and so on. Moreover, there is a basic loss of economic freedom: you cannot choose your provider, when and where to pay, and so on. It is absorbed by the state. The state does a better job protecting from violence and enforcing justice than trying to provide for everyone.<BR/><BR/>The poor need affordable health care and costs are out of line for everyone. Still, socialism is not the answer.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-44956879172210699402008-02-13T18:12:00.000-07:002008-02-13T18:12:00.000-07:00Dr. Groothuis, you wrote the following:"My knowled...Dr. Groothuis, you wrote the following:<BR/><BR/>"My knowledge of socialism tells me it is never the best solution. So, while I'm not sure on the details of improving health care, I reject socialism, given its gigantic bureaucracies, its controls, and so on."<BR/><BR/>First one comment: perhaps it would be wiser to refer to the healthcare system adopted by the overwhelming majority of western nations as publicly-funded healthcare healthcare, instead of socialized healthcare, given the glib pejorative nature of the adjective socialized. <BR/><BR/>Next, I have a couple of questions.<BR/><BR/>First, what precisely in the description of my experience of 26 years with the Italian healthcare system (v my experience of healthcare in the United States) did you find so terrifying that it makes you want to reject publicly-funded healthcare without even trying it (or have you, with bad experiences)? As I said, based on direct experience I have no qualms in calling the Italian system superior to the one adopted by the United States. <BR/><BR/>My other question is: as I said above, the overwhelming majority of western nations has chosen publicly-funded healthcare. This includes countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Australia, Japan, and so on). Are we to assume, based on your sweeping and rather unsubstantiated equation of socialized medicine with socialism, that all such nations are socialists? And if that were the case, which it is obviously not, wouldn't that be proof that socialism's bad reputation in the United States is irrational?<BR/><BR/>As usual, though not required, your answer is much appreciated.<BR/><BR/>Best,The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-54774929020010434792008-02-13T16:30:00.000-07:002008-02-13T16:30:00.000-07:00You need to nuance your language. Even on a blog. ...You need to nuance your language. Even on a blog. Simply stating that people are wrong requires tempering and makes me question the contexts that you operate in regularly.<BR/><BR/>Socialized medicine doesn't equal socialism anymore than having a national army equal socialism if such de facto definitions are your rubric. In other words, don't equivocate socialized medicine with socialism unless you are willing to do the same with national defense and other socialized programs. I expect better thinking from you. Forgive my expectations.<BR/><BR/>Again: would you deny your wife health care knowing her pre-existing condition? You realize that she receives a disproportionate amount of service at the expense of healthy individuals (such as yourself and other people in the plan). No insurance company would see her as an investment, but as a liability. That's the inherent moral problem with for-profit health care.<BR/><BR/>Here's my advice: before you decry "socialized medicine" consider the real and nominal costs, consider what realms of society are already socialized, and ask yourself if you'd really condemn your wife to utter poverty should you lose your job. You would do well to read the vade mecum of Reaganomics, A. Smith. Until then your opinions should be meek at best about health care.<BR/><BR/>You should use this standard on the rest of your blog. It is far too incendiary, especially on topics on which you are ignorant. Train your students to give cautious, reasoned and well-studied statements; we might see a Denver Seminary graduate at Notre Dame (or a top program) in the future. Leading by example would be a start, and admissions groups will know that they are getting recommendations from a philosopher rather than an evangelist. (Yes, students participate and your blog would be investigated to determine your credibility.)<BR/><BR/>Notre Dame graduate;<BR/>former fundamentalistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-2761986943523378772008-02-13T00:18:00.000-07:002008-02-13T00:18:00.000-07:00No name:You are wrong. I pointed out a false dicho...No name:<BR/><BR/>You are wrong. I pointed out a false dichotomy: socialized medicine or the present situation. My knowledge of socialism tells me it is never the best solution. So, while I'm not sure on the details of improving health care, I reject socialism, given its gigantic bureaucracies, its controls, and so on.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-21526117897862228832008-02-12T00:06:00.000-07:002008-02-12T00:06:00.000-07:00Tom:I'm glad about your daughter. When I met you, ...Tom:<BR/><BR/>I'm glad about your daughter. When I met you, you were younger than that! And now we are grasshoppers (Eccles. 12). Or at least I am.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>DGDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-21784164262635027122008-02-11T16:25:00.000-07:002008-02-11T16:25:00.000-07:00Doug,Thanks for responding. Of course, I never mea...Doug,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding. Of course, I never meant to suggest that the only options were "socialized medicine" (whatever that comes to precisely) and the current system. I was reacting only to your pair of claims that "few go without health care" and that many who go without care do so by choice. <BR/><BR/>And thanks for you concern for my daughter. I'm glad to report that she's a happy, healthy 20 year-old. She still battles her asthma sometimes, but (thanks to the good health care she's been able to have) it's generally more of a nuisance than a debilitating condition.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05074257624733067171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-73951433079996654752008-02-11T15:40:00.000-07:002008-02-11T15:40:00.000-07:00"I am not enough of an expert to know what the bes..."I am not enough of an expert to know what the best process of amelioration is."<BR/><BR/>You ought to place your opinion in abeyence. Declaiming certain policies without knowledge of even the most basic facts is at best irresponsible and at worst demagoguery. Lets leave saber-rattling buzzwords to others. <BR/><BR/>We spend 16% of our GDP on health care--the next highest is 7%. <BR/><BR/>You've been blessed with a job that provides excellent health care--just suppose for one second that you lost your health care and had to purchase care for you wife. She'd be denied because of a pre-existing condition and you'd be doomed to poverty. Consider for one second who you are condemning: they might be someone else's wife.<BR/><BR/>Like any system there are problems. No doubt socialized medicine has problems, but does it provide benefits that outweigh the costs? Economically it is proven, but you might have to wait a little longer. I'd be willing to bear that cross for you, your wife, or your children should you lose your job. Would you be willing to do that for others?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-44933007891074777932008-02-11T12:13:00.000-07:002008-02-11T12:13:00.000-07:00Dr. Groothuis:You are right: the present insurance...Dr. Groothuis:<BR/><BR/>You are right: the present insurance-based system v. socialized medicine is a false dichotomy.<BR/><BR/>Personally, as I wrote earlier, I believe that insurance companies should be able to participate in the system, but in addition to, not instead of, a single-payer system, which works better than the American system everywhere it has been adopted. <BR/><BR/>Currently, we have a situation where health insurance companies and PhRMA basically set the rules. Congress does not want to be accused of interfering with the free-market, so regulation in the healthcare industry is too limited, and allows health insurance companies to get away with, if not murder, negligent homicide. <BR/><BR/>But the role of government in modern societies should be that of a moderator between the interests of big business and the interests of the general public, and--when in doubt--the common good should prevail. Instead, the contrary has been true for too long.<BR/><BR/>I am very mystified that even those who recognize that the current insurance-based health system is not working (including all remaining presidential candidates) propose to fix it by expanding insurance coverage to everybody through universal mandates. Am I alone?The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-72790756219523790752008-02-11T11:33:00.000-07:002008-02-11T11:33:00.000-07:00Tom:Our health care situation needs improvement, n...Tom:<BR/><BR/>Our health care situation needs improvement, no doubt. I simply believe that socialized medicine is worse than the present situation. So, the alternatives are not limited to (1) the present deal or (2) socialized medicine; I take that to be a false dichotomy. I am not enough of an expert to know what the best process of amelioration is.<BR/><BR/>I am sorry about your daughter.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-24655103301025535942008-02-11T09:58:00.000-07:002008-02-11T09:58:00.000-07:00Doug,As with SirFab, I was a little taken aback by...Doug,<BR/><BR/>As with SirFab, I was a little taken aback by your claim that "few go without health care" in the States. True, few who are in immediate danger of dying will not be given aid. But the low-wage worker whose employer doesn't provide benefits will very often have no choice but to let conditions that are not immediately life threatening go untreated. <BR/><BR/>My oldest daughter has had moderate (although at times severe) asthma since she was five. If I worked a low-wage job that came with no benefits (as many low wage jobs do), I simply couldn't have afforded the midnight emergency room visits, the many expensive medications, or the nebulizer that effective care of her condition has required. <BR/><BR/>For a great, great many poor Americans, going without health insurance is hardly a choice. The price of health insurance that is not subsidized by one's employer makes it not a possibility for the poor. For a great many others it is a choice, I suppose: they can pay the rising costs of rent, utilities, and food or they can pay their health insurance premiums. Some choice.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05074257624733067171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-45743933503560400822008-02-10T23:38:00.000-07:002008-02-10T23:38:00.000-07:00Thank you, Dr. Groothuis, for taking the time to a...Thank you, Dr. Groothuis, for taking the time to answer my questions.<BR/><BR/>We are in agreement about some things, like a balanced budget (even that is a very broad concept) and the need for more energy independence. We also agree that while going to Iraq was hard to justify for you (and impossible to justify for me) we cannot leave behind the gigantic mess that we have created. <BR/><BR/>We disagree on nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has intrinsically huge risks and leaves the problem of what we do about the nuclear waste, other than making bullets and shells with depleted uranium. It has ethical implications as well. The French draw most of their power from nuclear energy, leaving Italy, and other bordering nations that do not make nuclear power in the unenviable situation of having none of the benefits and all of the dangers. That could very well happen here. States that decide to maximize the use of wind and solar power instead of nuclear energy would likely suffer for the nuclear choice of neighboring states. In any case, energy independence is not easy to achieve and we should not count exclusively on the private sector to solve the problem. Too often government-funded research does the bulk of the work, only for the profits to be reaped by the private sector.<BR/><BR/>Last, we have a major disagreement on socialized medicine. As an Italian, I have direct experience with socialized medicine, and I do not understand why Americans are so repulsed by the concept. Perhaps it has to do with how they were brainwashed to associate any word that starts with the letters *social* with communism and repression. In any case, I would never trade Italy's socialized healthcare for America's. <BR/><BR/>In Italy, I never had to fear that I would have nowhere to go in times of need. When I went to the doctor, he took time for a thorough visit, instead of rushing me through as happens here in the U.S. I had the utmost confidence in the opinion of the doctors and the professors that visited me. And healthcare never cost me a penny, except for a small co-pay for visits and medicines. <BR/><BR/>The system is paid for by tax dollars, so everybody contributes in proportion to their income (which is a form of providing “for the least of them”). Private insurance provides supplemental healthcare for those who can afford it. It is a fact of life that money buys power, and Italy is no different in that sense. But those who choose to buy private insurance are not exempt from paying taxes for healthcare. <BR/><BR/>I know that all is not well with the way healthcare works in Italy. There are structural delays, not enough hospital beds in certain areas, waiting lists for non-life critical care (in the case of transplants or other critical care, some Italians go to private clinics or abroad, so they do not have to wait). It is not a perfect system, but fears of rationing are greatly exaggerated. (The U.S. healthcare system is not perfect either, and stealth-rationing occurs in the form of those who are not insured and cannot afford to pay.) <BR/><BR/>Things changed when I moved to America.<BR/><BR/>I have never felt as depressed, angry, and helpless as when I was sick after coming to America. I had no health insurance and my wife was a temp. We did not have health insurance not because we thought we did not need it or because we wanted to spend money irresponsibly. We did not have health insurance because we could not afford it. We went without health insurance for 5 of the first 7 years in our marriage (which, to an extent, suffered because of it). The one time I had to go to the emergency room, for something that luckily was not serious and which took one hour to investigate, I had to pay $350 out of pocket (in 1993), on wages of $750 a month. I am glad to report that I have had a good job and good health insurance for many years now, but rest assured that I understand the plight of those who don’t, in a country that relies on people being covered by insurance companies. <BR/><BR/>So now you understand why, when you say that almost everyone has access to healthcare, my nerves are raw. Everybody has access to healthcare, but too many are uninsured and choose not to use it or get stuck with a bill they cannot afford. Either way, the monetary and psychological costs of people who should see a doctor or go to a hospital, but cannot afford to and choose not to, is incalculable, not the mention the public health risks for the rest of the population.<BR/><BR/>From my standpoint, Americans have an overinflated and unjustified sense of pride in their healthcare system. This is the fault of free-market insurance advocates and of those who believe them when they say that taxes are already high enough and that socialized medicine would make matters wars. To them I say this: I agree that taxes are high enough (for the middle-class), but you don't need to raise taxes on everyone, only on the wealthy, and/or you can shift your national priorities, so that instead of waging war because you can, you wage it because you have to. And instead of inflating military budgets, you can shift funds to services that make people lives' better, instead of destroying them. That is what civilized nations do. And in so doing, they probably need less money for defense (fewer enemies) and have more money for everything else. Instead, in America I pay a lot of taxes, AND I have to BUY my own health insurance.<BR/><BR/>A country that spends so much money on defense (twice as much as the European Union combined and more than ten times as China) but does not have universal healthcare is not a shining example to the world. A country that cuts taxes for the very wealthy and does allows loopholes for corporations to escape taxes, while anyone has to go without healthcare is not the beacon of freedom, democracy and justice that it would have its citizens and the rest of the world believe. It is certainly not a model to follow or to export to the rest of the world, and its conviction in its superiority flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. On healthcare, America needs to stop asking the mirror to confirm its belief in its superiority and take a good look around. It might learn something healthy.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-30579081981352985572008-02-10T18:58:00.000-07:002008-02-10T18:58:00.000-07:00Correction.In my previous post I wrote:"Several fa...Correction.<BR/><BR/>In my previous post I wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Several factors make abortion more widespread than it needs to be: poverty is certainly one (even though abortion is limited to poor women, not at all);"<BR/><BR/>It should read "(even though abortion is NOT limited to poor women);"<BR/><BR/>I hope the meaning was clear.<BR/><BR/>SirfabThe Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1657875097304403092008-02-10T17:04:00.000-07:002008-02-10T17:04:00.000-07:00Jake: I don't want to gang up on Kyl here, but I c...Jake: I don't want to gang up on Kyl here, but I could have written your last post myself. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps Kyl would do well to read God's Politics (Jim Wallis) to learn a socially progressive religious perspective. As you and I have both said, achieving change requires changing hearts and minds, in combination with introducing restrictive legislation.<BR/><BR/>Kyl: we have not even touched upon an aspect of the abortion issue which is very important to the majority of Americans. You do understand that, as adamant as you are about abolishing abortion rights, a large section of the population sees abortion as an integral component of sexual freedom, don't you? Bear with me, please. <BR/><BR/>We are men, and we are in the privileged position of carrying the seed necessary to procreation, without having to carry the baby ourselves. Our natural instinct, which may or may not be tempered by moral consideration or religious beliefs, is to spread that seed. We are designed, biologically, to act as inseminators. And, historically, some men have no great regard for the consequences that this part of their nature has for women, or have been overwhelmed by instinct). <BR/><BR/>Prior to the extensive availability of contraception, women were at the mercy of men in terms of the consequences of sexuality. Sexual freedom for women is a fairly recent conquest in most societies, and abortion has been regarded as an indispensable component of a woman's sexual freedom. (With proper contraception, it is far from indispensable, but that is a more recent development). <BR/><BR/>When religious conservatives fight not just against abortion, but also for abstinence-only education (which has been shown not to work as well as its supporters pretend and poses collateral health dangers) instead of comprehensive sexual education, or to prevent access to vaccination against HPV or to the day after pill, which many consider a form of abortion (a long philosophical discussion on intent and a biological one on fertilization and embryology would be required), many people naturally push back against limiting access to abortion, because they see the fight of religious conservatives as a fundamentalist attempt to control sexuality and morality, based on very restrictive religious moral standards, which many do not adhere to.<BR/><BR/>Much as religious conservatives would like a world of monogamous, committed, and married couples, the world’s view of sexuality and relationships has changed irreversibly, and a degree of sexual promiscuity is accepted by a large sector of society. That is fact, and wishing otherwise, though not illegal, is anachronistic.<BR/><BR/>Going back to abortion, then, it is important in my opinion that those who would like to see it limited to fairly exceptional circumstances focus on achieving that goal, rather than on trying to bring about broad changes in the larger sexual behavior issue. Those who cannot separate the two, in my opinion, are hypocritical about reducing abortion and have a hidden agenda of controlling sexuality, which, by the way, is a staple of repressive, undemocratic governments.<BR/><BR/>Several factors make abortion more widespread than it needs to be: poverty is certainly one (even though abortion is limited to poor women, not at all); the lack of environmental stability for mothers is another. So are lack of access to health care, lack of access to or education about contraception, as well as employment laws which do not protect the job of a pregnant woman and "force" her to terminate the pregnancy (I put "force" in quotes because that's the way some women in that position see their action, as a forced choice, though it is not). More work needs to be done on improving counseling and on promoting better parenting on issues of sexuality; and, last but no least, a common sense discussion in society about the value of human life is needed.<BR/><BR/>Working together, we can achieve significant change in the near future. Those who base their opposition to abortion on religious principles need to find common ground with those who oppose abortion from a secular perspective. Criminalizing or outlawing abortion does nothing to address the problem of why there is a demand for it, much like outlawing and criminalizing drug and alcohol use have not eliminated either. Pitting ideology against common sense only delays the achievement of significant results and further divides people who could be united in an important fight.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-87721767354842153422008-02-10T13:41:00.000-07:002008-02-10T13:41:00.000-07:00SirFab asks:So I would like to ask you a few thing...SirFab asks:<BR/><BR/><BR/>So I would like to ask you a few things:<BR/><BR/>"What are other areas where money could be better spent than on radical environmental policies (or socialized medicine)?"<BR/><BR/>I don't want much governmental money spent elsewhere. I believe in minimal state government. The basic purpose of the state is to enforce justice, not redistribute wealth. See Romans 13:1-7.<BR/><BR/>Let people keep more of their money and use it as they see fit (within the law).<BR/><BR/>"Do you allow for the possibility that radical changes in energy policy would serve to stimulate our sagging economy more than sending each American $600 back every election year, and help us to achieve less dependence on foreign oil, with the geopolitical advantages that would ensue?"<BR/><BR/>We need more independence from foreign oil. Let the market produce more energy efficient cars and let American's be more responsible in using gas. Moreover, drill at ANWAR (in Alaska) and tap into that oil. Also ramp up nuclear power; it is safe and efficient.<BR/><BR/>What do you think of the fact that we have spent half a trillion dollars to date on an elective war (there were/are many enemies that present a higher danger for national security that Iraq did when we attacked it), and that the cost of the war, by the time we are done if John McCain is elected, could surpass 1 trillion dollars? <BR/><BR/>Afganistan was a require war. Iraq is tougher to call, but since we are there we cannot abandon it to terrorists. We need to stay the course or be worse off.<BR/><BR/>Is federal money better spent on guaranteeing that no one in a civilized nation goes without healthcare, on being good stewards of the environment, or on waging permanent Orwellian wars?<BR/><BR/>Few go without health care now, without socialized medicine. Many refuse to take out insurance even if they can afford it. Changes need to happen in health care, but socialized medicine--with its gigantic bureaucracy and chronic waits and shortages--is not the answer.<BR/><BR/>What is a moral budget for you<BR/><BR/>A balanced budget, if at all possible.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-18653614718319894802008-02-10T13:11:00.000-07:002008-02-10T13:11:00.000-07:00Please stop attacking me."As if it is partisan, un...Please stop attacking me.<BR/><BR/>"As if it is partisan, unfounded, and irrational to vote for a person that will contribute to the start of a major, major change for the unborn. We are (once again) talking about 45 million slaughtered people. These things should be glaringly obvious to anybody. However, our culture is still very confused."<BR/><BR/>Kyl: Do you believe that life begins at conception? <BR/><BR/>If so, why don't you count birth control (e.g. the pill) as abortive? Sometimes (we don't know exactly how often) conception occurs but is unable to attach. <BR/><BR/>Also, is one abortion because of birth control acceptable? If not, would you outlaw birth control?<BR/><BR/>Please answer these questions directly.Marty "the fly" Rosenbloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759457342015876179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-12346684989540426192008-02-10T07:26:00.000-07:002008-02-10T07:26:00.000-07:00Kyl,The comparison does little but over-sensationa...Kyl,<BR/><BR/>The comparison does little but over-sensationalize the issue. Its a red herring, and adds little to the discussion. Is anybody here saying that abortion doesn't matter? I'm certainly not - which I think I've made clear in my comments.<BR/><BR/>Ending abortion with a group hug? Clever, but not real helpful, although it allows you to dismiss the suggestion without considering it at all. By all means, please continue trying to legislate it out of existence - that's worked really well over the past 30+ years, hasn't it? Seriously, Kyl - instead of focusing on the differences between political conservatives and liberals on this issue, it would be far more productive to focus on the things most agree with - drastically reducing the number of elective abortions which occur by dealing with root causes. Add to that the church (and others, with respect to SirFab) actually changing hearts on an individual level (as opposed to constantly trying to legislate people into agreement with us), and I think we would have a much greater recipe for success than what we have seen since Roe v. Wade, when the majority of the focus has been on legislating abortion of of existence.<BR/><BR/>Kyl, once again you have completely ignored my entire point - that abortion, while important, is not the ONLY issue which should concern Christians when they go to the voting booths. I suppose I should take that silence as a refusal to consider this idea, but I'd still love to hear an argument. But I'll admit, I'm starting to feel a little like I'm beating my head against a brick wall here.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04168975027059805849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-31283143055969988032008-02-10T04:05:00.000-07:002008-02-10T04:05:00.000-07:00I accidentally wrote Sirbab above, Sirfab (typing ...I accidentally wrote Sirbab above, Sirfab (typing error).Kyl Schalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17954965854308545599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-28263299531048246662008-02-10T03:59:00.000-07:002008-02-10T03:59:00.000-07:00Sirbab,Best.Jake,“Perhaps we are better off (as pe...Sirbab,<BR/><BR/>Best.<BR/><BR/>Jake,<BR/><BR/>“Perhaps we are better off (as people like Jim Wallis have suggested) working with one another to drastically reduce the number of abortions by working against contributing factors like poverty.”<BR/><BR/>The above quote sounds like ending abortion with a group hug. In addition, the comparison of slavery to the killing of unborn human beings shows the magnitude of the issue. The comparison has been widely used. <BR/><BR/>Best.Kyl Schalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17954965854308545599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-41801240035627479692008-02-09T22:35:00.000-07:002008-02-09T22:35:00.000-07:00Jake, I agree with you completely.Peace, brother.Jake, I agree with you completely.<BR/><BR/>Peace, brother.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-29894525669136753702008-02-09T22:25:00.000-07:002008-02-09T22:25:00.000-07:00Sirfab - I always appreciate reading your comments...Sirfab - I always appreciate reading your comments on this board. Thanks for your well-reasoned discussion and for presenting another view - one that I think deserves to be heard and considered.<BR/><BR/>Kyl - I have no idea what your introduction of slavery has to do with this discussion - it has no bearing whatsoever. I've continually said that yes, abortion is an important issue. But you have never once addressed my assertion that other issues are important as well. I would love to hear if there are any other issues you consider when choosing a candidate to support. If not, I would respectfully suggest that you consider the very real possibility that your view of important issues is far too narrow.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Sirfab - the assertion that we will see drastically more abortions under Clinton or Obama is completely unfounded. I'd love to see some sort of support for that statement, but I just don't think you can provide it. Yes, they do support keeping elective abortion legal (and no, I do not agree with that particular position). But it seems to me that is supporting the status quo - I'm not sure how that would increase abortions. And I have seen both of them discuss their desire to see LESS elective abortions. Perhaps we are better off (as people like Jim Wallis have suggested) working with one another to drastically reduce the number of abortions by working against contributing factors like poverty.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04168975027059805849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-91400859343612874192008-02-09T21:16:00.000-07:002008-02-09T21:16:00.000-07:00By the way, Kyl, thanks for staying civil througho...By the way, Kyl, thanks for staying civil throughout our discussion. We disagree, but in peace. <BR/><BR/>This blog sparks high emotions, and sometimes people get carried away, including yours truly. So I appreciate your attitude.<BR/><BR/>And thanks, Dr. Groothuis, for providing such a stimulating forum.<BR/><BR/>(I only hope you will find the time to answer my earlier post on spending. If not, perhaps you can give me your answers when we meet to see Expelled!)<BR/><BR/>FabThe Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-24373927666171441752008-02-09T21:07:00.000-07:002008-02-09T21:07:00.000-07:00Supreme Court appointments are important indeed. U...Supreme Court appointments are important indeed. Unfortunately, conservative justices will issue other rulings that will do much harm to America. You will say that it does not matter, that anything the court does will be outweighed by the importance of reversing Roe v Wade. It will save the lives of 1.21 million children, won't it? No, it won't. <BR/><BR/>Assume a Republican appoints a conservative justice, and that justice is instrumental in reversing Roe v Wade: What will really happen? The reversal of Roe v Wade will transfer the power to legislate on abortion back to the states. Liberal states will NEVER ban abortion. They would rather secede, and might very well do it. Some conservative states may try to ban abortion, and many states already have laws that make it near impossible to have an abortion, but an outright ban goes too far for most Americans, including me and at least the good citizens of South Dakota, who in 2006 rejected an attempt by the legislature to do just that. Women who live in states where abortion is all but illegal will still get it in states that allow it. Those who cannot will find a way to end the pregnancy anyway. At what cost?<BR/><BR/>The likely answer is that a conservative Supreme Court will also be instrumental in limiting the rights of individuals versus corporations, for example in the area of workers rights, or equal pay for women. It will limit the right of individuals to appeal against corporations by reforming tort law (not all lawsuits are as frivolous as corporate America would have you believe). It might extending the power of the president over congress in times of war. It may reverse some of the desegregation laws that have an impact on the quality of education for inner city students (this has already been done, by the way, by the current right-leaning Supreme Court). It will likely limit state's powers to demand cleaner air and water for their citizens. It will rule in favor of more media deregulation and on, and on, and on… <BR/><BR/>Abortion is a fundamental issue for many voters. The problem is that no judicial appointment alone will end abortion. But it might put a stop to progress in the lives of those individuals who have had the fortune/misfortune to make it out of the womb already. Think well before you vote, and before your principled, one-issue-above-all stand wreaks havoc on the nation.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-37638883694522095902008-02-09T19:50:00.000-07:002008-02-09T19:50:00.000-07:00(continued from above)Sirfab writes, “As you can s...(continued from above)<BR/><BR/>Sirfab writes, “As you can see from both links, taking a purely ideological approach to the abortion is self-defeating.” <BR/><BR/>Below is the approach we should take:<BR/><BR/>We should take the best approach (i.e., the approach that contributes to major changes). We need more than the relatively small changes that Sirfab seems to be talking about.Kyl Schalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17954965854308545599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-24328148846433878142008-02-09T19:24:00.000-07:002008-02-09T19:24:00.000-07:00Sirfab,Dr. Groothuis wrote, “The appointement of l...Sirfab,<BR/><BR/>Dr. Groothuis wrote, “The appointement of liberal judges to the Supreme Court, who view it as a "living document" and dispense with authorial intent. There would then be no chance of overturning Roe Vs. Wade in my lifetime.”<BR/><BR/>Everybody knows how important the Justices of the Supreme Court are for the unborn. As if Clinton/Obama’s appointment of liberal judges is going to contribute to a major, major reduction of the 1.21 million that are being killed per year. We are looking at killings on the largest-scale conceivable. We need reductions that are far greater than the type you mentioned. Clinton/Obama are not going to contribute to the start of a major, major reduction in the intentional killing of innocent human beings (i.e., the unborn).<BR/><BR/>Sirfab wrote, “As I said, I respect your conviction, but I decry the claim that "people like Obama and Clinton will only make things far worse": It is partisan, unfounded, and irrational.”<BR/><BR/>As if it is partisan, unfounded, and irrational to vote for a person that will contribute to the start of a major, major change for the unborn. We are (once again) talking about 45 million slaughtered people. These things should be glaringly obvious to anybody. However, our culture is still very confused. <BR/><BR/>Clinton/Obama are not the type of leaders that will contribute to the aforementioned positive start that will make a difference for the 1.21 million people that continue to be killed every year.Kyl Schalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17954965854308545599noreply@blogger.com