14 Nov 05
Originally posted by telerionYes, but...why not a free market in the particular case of abortions?
. . . but the crazy stuff I was spouting above is conservatism. It's just hardline libertarian conservatism. Milton Friedman. Chicago School. That mentality.
Since this has blown up in my face, getting a rise from the wrong people, I am forced to admit that I do not agree with the "free market is always good" idea. I have continually argu ...[text shortened]... just a little imagination, we can think of some other markets that perhaps should be restricted.
The case here is for deciding if an abortion is a private or public decision. If it is considered private, why shouldn't the market work nicely? Free markets are morally neutral as aggregate morality is not easily quantifiable.
14 Nov 05
2 edits
Yes, but...why not a free market in the particular case of abortions?
Actually, in general maybe there should be one. I was renouncing some of my outlandish antics in this thread. Then again if unwanted pregnancies lead to large social externalities (as Steve Levitt argues in his work), then perhaps it makes sense to subsidize it (maybe not of course).
In general, however, I am not one who subscribes to the idea that a market free of government regulation will always be better. That said, I probably admire them more than the average Joe.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Uh oh. "Sassy" is getting his groove on. And now he's dragged that bastion of logic, the Christian Right, into the argument.
Why isn't anybody talking about how the US has way more abortions than any other industrialized country, and we're also the only industrialized country that tells the horniest and most curious creatures on the planet - teenagers - to "just say no" to sex?
"Abstinence education" isn't education at all. It's a short-sighted and counterproduc ...[text shortened]... perfectly natural - and necessary - urges are wrong and meant to be quashed instead of managed.
God's gonna be here any minute...
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by wibHow terribly cliche to derogatorily bring the Christian Right, which is neither Christian nor right, into the mix. Your attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater is juvenile at best.
Uh oh. "Sassy" is getting his groove on. And now he's dragged that bastion of logic, the Christian Right, into the argument.
God's gonna be here any minute...
While there are many Christians who vehemently regard abortion as Satan's attempt at controlling history, the fact remains there are many other Christians who have more than a superficial understanding and regard for what the Bible truly teaches.
Abortion has become the red herring, the wind-up punch-that-isn't-a-punch for the fundamental politicized right, who errently consider their work spiritual.
The fact remains, whenever the Bible speaks of the origin of the human being, it is always "away from the womb." Just as the beginning of man was away from the dirt, the biologial human becomes soul-ful human away from the womb. That is the orthodox Christian view.
To (rightfully) throw out the Christian Right view and think you have adequately addressed the doctrine of Scripture is foolish. Understandable in the light of limited knowledge, but foolish, nonetheless.
15 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by JVG7Wow. I had no idea I had said all of that. I posted 2 sentences and you turned into it 3 paragraphs.
How terribly cliche to derogatorily bring the Christian Right, which is neither Christian nor right, into the mix. Your attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater is juvenile at best.
While there are many Christians who vehemently regard abortion as Satan's attempt at controlling history, the fact remains there are many other Christians who have more ...[text shortened]... ripture is foolish. Understandable in the light of limited knowledge, but foolish, nonetheless.
Oh that's right, I didn't say any of those things. Perhaps thou assume too much?
And if you want dispute the Christian right being neither christian nor right, you'll have to take that up with another party. You'll get no argument from me on it.
15 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by wibDon't underestimate yourself. Despite only using two sentences, the words are loaded with negative connotations. Specifically, your derogatory reference to the CR as a bastion of logic, infers a blanket denouncement of anything Christian as lacking in reason.
Wow. I had no idea I had said all of that. I posted 2 sentences and you turned into it 3 paragraphs.
Oh that's right, I didn't say any of those things. Perhaps thou assume too much?
And if you want dispute the Christian right being neither christian nor right, you'll have to take that up with another party. You'll get no argument from me on it.
Additionally, the "God is going to be here any minute" comment again hints at the inclusion of God as necessarily excluding rational argument.
Funny, isn't it, how the very One Who conferred reason and rational thought on the creature is marginalized to insignificance by the same creature?
BTW, my post was actually five paragraphs, for those keeping count.
16 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionFirst we have this:
[b]Yes, but...why not a free market in the particular case of abortions?
Actually, in general maybe there should be one. I was renouncing some of my outlandish antics in this thread. Then again if unwanted pregnancies lead to large social externalities (as Steve Levitt argues in his work), then perhaps it makes sense to subsidize it (maybe not of ...[text shortened]... tion will always be better. That said, I probably admire them more than the average Joe.[/b]
"Actually, in general maybe..." WTF does that mean, can we get anymore indecisive?....oh yes we can, try this for wishy washy:
"...it makes sense to subsidize it (maybe not of course)."
and then a few posts down we have this:
Do you have something to contribute to the discussion of the market for abortion and government regulation of it?
This is after he has admitted that most of his posts have been sarrrrrrrcasm.
The market should be unregulated and un-subsidised by guvamint. There are those that feel abortion is tantamount to murder, no way should these people be made to fund abortions.
And I have no more right to stop a woman seeking an abortion from witch doctor, a faith healer, a clairvoyant, someone operating out of the back of a van armed only with a coathanger, than I do to stop a person from sitting in front of their computer too long. telerion, if you decide to have brain surgery performed on yourself by the plumber, I may advise against it but you'll be pleased to know I wont resort to force, to stop you or the plumber.
Yes there is a link with the minimum wage thread, there should be no minimum rate for those that perform abortions, or their staff. One of the side effects of a minimum rate is pushing the cost of an abortion out of the reach of those that may need one most.
The only regulation neccesary is to protect minors and protect against false claims.
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by telerionI guess I could; I was responding to posts otherwise. The format appeared to be people responding to others' posts, without necessarily following the beginning post. That is what I was doing.
Do you have something to contribute to the discussion of the market for abortion and government regulation of it?
Forgive the faux pas.