NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever notice how people who oppose abortion due to the sancitity of life have a tendancy to oppose universal health care that could save lives and support the death penalty? I'm not being judgemental here but I think that's a bizzare inconsistancy. What do you think's going on here?
I found this on another forum, and found the question to be intrigueing.

What do you think?

I find them to be weird. it's obvious why some would oppose healthcare and oppose abortion (Although I may not agree with them) but support the death penalty too?

seriously odd . . . .

I agree with the death penalty part, but the universal health care one is pretty damn iffy.

The thing is, protecting the sanctity of life doesn't mean it's our responsibility to protect everyone all of the time; that's an impossible aim, one that can be extended to any form of government control and regulation under the aegis of guarding the "sanctity of life". While universal healthcare may be a good idea, at least if rationally implemented, it doesn't fall under the same goal of protecting the sanctity of life. There is only so much we can do, and only so much we have a responsibility to do without stifling the freedom of other people.

Protecting the "sanctity of life" generally means protecting the lives of innocent people from being terminated without their consent. I would assume such a term applies to forms of abortion, war, and the death penalty since under this definition all three involve some form of killing.

They usually justify it as not being pro-life, but rather pro-innocent life.

Denying someone healthcare until they are at high risk just because they work at burger king and can't afford it isn't killing that person?

Denying someone healthcare until they are at high risk just because they work at burger king and can't afford it isn't killing that person?

No.

If you're going to blame the provider for "killing" that person, also blame the ambulance chasers that drive up malpractice insurance rates and thus drive up the price of healthcare, or the company for failing to provide insurance to its workers, or the person themselves for not getting the education and skills for a better job, or the government for not providing them with the resources necessary to get that education, or their parents and community for not giving them the kind of values needed for success, and so on until pretty much everybody is somehow to blame.

The thing is, you can only go so far with blame. The healthcare provider can only do so much; they have operating expenses as much as anyone else and they need to price their services accordingly. Simply throwing away money would probably drive them out of business, and then everybody is screwed over.

Life is only sacred if it's cute and small.

Life is only sacred if it's cute and small.

Exactly ;)

No.

If you're going to blame the provider for "killing" that person, also blame the ambulance chasers that drive up malpractice insurance rates and thus drive up the price of healthcare, or the company for failing to provide insurance to its workers, or the person themselves for not getting the education and skills for a better job, or the government for not providing them with the resources necessary to get that education, or their parents and community for not giving them the kind of values needed for success, and so on until pretty much everybody is somehow to blame.

The thing is, you can only go so far with blame. The healthcare provider can only do so much; they have operating expenses as much as anyone else and they need to price their services accordingly. Simply throwing away money would probably drive them out of business, and then everybody is screwed over.

I love it when, in order to avoid obvious blame for a wrong, one plays a hyperextended blame game in order to make holding anyone or any group responsible for something is ridiculous or impossible. This tactic is often used by those who will quickly turn around and argue about personal responsibility.

In the alternative, one could simply find fault with a society where people die because they can't get adequate health care.

Life is only sacred if it's cute and small.
Sounds like you could make a LOLcat out of that sentence...

I agree with the death penalty part, but the universal health care one is pretty damn iffy.

The thing is, protecting the sanctity of life doesn't mean it's our responsibility to protect everyone all of the time; that's an impossible aim, one that can be extended to any form of government control and regulation under the aegis of guarding the "sanctity of life". While universal healthcare may be a good idea, at least if rationally implemented, it doesn't fall under the same goal of protecting the sanctity of life. There is only so much we can do, and only so much we have a responsibility to do without stifling the freedom of other people.

Protecting the "sanctity of life" generally means protecting the lives of innocent people from being terminated without their consent. I would assume such a term applies to forms of abortion, war, and the death penalty since under this definition all three involve some form of killing.

I think the whole point is there appears to be no morally consistent or thorough belief in any "sanctity of life." Otherwise those that profess to have such a belief would take consistent positions in favor of the protection and enhancement of life.

*waits for Nanatsu to produce said LOLcat*

I found this on another forum, and found the question to be intrigueing.

What do you think?

have you asked them why they support the DP and fight against Universal Health Care yet still argue the Sanctity of Life?

I think it has to do with choice.

a child (the argument as to when it's a child can be hashed out in another thread) has no choice in a case of abortion.

those who commit crimes, do so because they chose to do such crimes that warrant the Death Penalty. (and yes, I argue against the Texas "guilt by association" law.)

and Universal Healthcare means a free ticket to fuck up your life because you can get patched up at another person's expense.

whether or not that's the viewpoint of everyone who fits your description is not known. this is just my opinion of why they take such a stance.

I found this on another forum, and found the question to be intrigueing.

What do you think?

Death penalty. They want to protect useless, unproductive, wasteful unborns but don't give half a shit about people who could be rehabilitated. Also don't forget all the war-mongering.

Personally, I say countries should implement parent-licensing. Any violation is given the choice of paying for an abortion or a free shotgun-abortion.

As in, me with a shotgun. Not enough money, oh well. Should've pulled out.

I love it when, in order to avoid obvious blame for a wrong, one plays a hyperextended blame game in order to make holding anyone or any group responsible for something is ridiculous or impossible. This tactic is often used by those who will quickly turn around and argue about personal responsibility.

In the alternative, one could simply find fault with a society where people die because they can't get adequate health care.

I don't think it's right, but I also think it is not right to charge someone with effectively murdering that person for not supporting universal healthcare.

That's also forgetting that universal healthcare, while a good idea, would not be a magical panacea that would solve all of our healthcare problems. The current system doesn't work, but there are no doubt plenty of problems in any system regardless of who has access to it, especially considering that same healthcare system has to be paid for by somebody, be it the government or individuals.

have you asked them why they support the DP and fight against Universal Health Care yet still argue the Sanctity of Life?

I think it has to do with choice.

a child (the argument as to when it's a child can be hashed out in another thread) has no choice in a case of abortion.

those who commit crimes, do so because they chose to do such crimes that warrant the Death Penalty. (and yes, I argue against the Texas "guilt by association" law.)

and Universal Healthcare means a free ticket to fuck up your life because you can get patched up at another person's expense.

whether or not that's the viewpoint of everyone who fits your description is not known. this is just my opinion.

Pretty ironic beginning for an anti-abortion argument.

I'd be curious to have someone who claims to support "the sanctity of life" tell us what that supposedly means.

I think the whole point is there appears to be no morally consistent or thorough belief in any "sanctity of life." Otherwise those that profess to have such a belief would take consistent positions in favor of the protection and enhancement of life.

It can be consistent, if you define your terms clearly. I think it's absolutely ludicrous that someone would oppose abortion but would have no problem killing people on death row or sending soldiers off to fight wars neither justified nor prudent.

But then again, sanctity of life only extends to those worthy of it. The lives unworthy of life are simply to be eliminated, no muss and no fuss.

have you asked them why they support the DP and fight against Universal Health Care yet still argue the Sanctity of Life?

I think it has to do with choice.

a child (the argument as to when it's a child can be hashed out in another thread) has no choice in a case of abortion.

those who commit crimes, do so because they chose to do such crimes that warrant the Death Penalty. (and yes, I argue against the Texas "guilt by association" law.)

and Universal Healthcare means a free ticket to fuck up your life because you can get patched up at another person's expense.

whether or not that's the viewpoint of everyone who fits your description is not known. this is just my opinion.

Those who commit crimes are not allowed to change? The child who is saved from abortion could go on a global genocidal crusade, rape hundreds of women, or run for President/PM for socially-conservative political parties.

And as for Universal Healthcare, yeah, it's a really good goddamn idea to just go around fucking up your own body. Anybody who does that will cull themselves from the gene pool eventually.

The thing is, their opinions are justifications of total bullshit.

I don't think it's right, but I also think it is not right to charge someone with effectively murdering that person for not supporting universal healthcare.

That's also forgetting that universal healthcare, while a good idea, would not be a magical panacea that would solve all of our healthcare problems. The current system doesn't work, but there are no doubt plenty of problems in any system regardless of who has access to it, especially considering that same healthcare system has to be paid for by somebody, be it the government or individuals.

I don't think anyone was advocating prosecuting for murder those who don't support universal healthcare.

I believe it was just being pointed out that if one really values life, one probably should believe in healthcare for everyone.

I don't think anyone was advocating prosecuting for murder those who don't support universal healthcare.

I believe it was just being pointed out that if one really values life, one probably should believe in healthcare for everyone.

Weak. Just shoot the motherfuckers who are that stupid.

And response to OP, no system works perfectly.

To me, the inconsistencies are evidence that the people promoting the "sanctity of life" argument are dishonest.

There are people who oppose abortion and also oppose the death penalty and war, and support universal health care. When they talk about the sanctity of life, they are sincere. I may disagree with their policy views, but I cannot question their beliefs.

On the other hand, those who do not follow their line, but rather pick and choose who they think it's okay to kill are who not, are bullshitters, in my opinion. They do not revere life at all. They revere claiming for themselves the power to tell others what to do, even to the point of deciding who lives and who dies.

As for the specific inconsistency of opposing abortion and opposing universal health care, that one's easy. It's just a matter of forcing someone to do something (give birth to babies) and then denying them the tools they need to do it properly (decent medical care).

That way, you guarantee failure -- in the form of miscarriages, infant mortality, congenital health problems, ongoing health problems for women, etc, not to mention illegal abortions -- all of which can be spun as proof of the moral inferiority of the social group they wish to place themselves above -- women, the poor, whomever.

I think it has to do with choice.


And yet, as I once pointed out elsewhere, they're more then willing to cut the foreskin off their male children's penis; it has nothing to do with choice, it has to do with with the fact that the majority of these people are unthinking fools.

I found this on another forum, and found the question to be intrigueing.

What do you think?

I think it needs facts. While I have certainly seen a number of such people on NSG, that isn't proof.

Well, nor is a survey really. But approaching people and asking well-framed questions, then correlating their attitude to those different cases of "taking life" ... is a whole lot more rigorous than judging by the self-rationalizations of those unfortunates who have had to swallow the inconsistencies of Catholicism as fact. EDIT: I mean: such people WILL talk a lot, they have contradictions to resolve in their own beliefs.

Here's where someone does my research for me and posts a link. And I look silly. Yay!

To me, the inconsistencies are evidence that the people promoting the "sanctity of life" argument are dishonest.

Strong word for "wrong." People can be wrong, without that demonstrating dishonesty.

I guess you mean "not honest with themselves." Well, that's no easy thing, is it?

I found this on another forum, and found the question to be intrigueing.

What do you think?

There are times where I like to be mean and say it's because they only care about you until you're out of the womb, and then you're just cheap labor.

But most of the time, I am aware that it's a logical disconnect, and that's really all there is to it.

I found this on another forum, and found the question to be intrigueing.

What do you think?

Pretty standard. The difference is desert. Some people *deserve* to die, while others don't.

Pro-lifers grant a fetus personhood in their minds, and an innocent person doesn't *deserve* to die, we can all agree. Most of us who are pro-choice simply regard a fetus as more-or-less unconscious tissue and leave it there - it isn't a person, so do with it what you will. But regarding a fetus as an innocent person doesn't necessarily mean you must believe that all people are always innocent, right? Some criminal offenders deserve death, according to our laws. For some crimes, a jury gets to make that choice - pretty heavy stuff, and I don't envy them, but I can see how you could have the idea of the guilty man/woman and the innocent fetus in your mind at once. If your god(s) tell you that *all* life is *always* sacred, in categorical terms, then you'd have to wiggle a bit more.

Pretty ironic beginning for an anti-abortion argument. depends on who is more important, I guess. the child or the parent(s). but again, that's only my guess.

I'd be curious to have someone who claims to support "the sanctity of life" tell us what that supposedly means.
that would be interesting.

And yet, as I once pointed out elsewhere, they're more then willing to cut the foreskin off their male children's penis; it has nothing to do with choice, it has to do with with the fact that the majority of these people are unthinking fools.
yet Genitile Mutlilation is also done by alot of families that don't hold the same beliefs as those arguing the 'Sanctity of Life'. so such an argument doesn't hold here.

Those who commit crimes are not allowed to change? are all crimes punished with the death penalty? is the death penalty perscribed for someone who is a career burgler? remember, as I SAID in other threads. While I believe in the Death Penalty, I also believe it's used too often for the wrong crimes.

The child who is saved from abortion could go on a global genocidal crusade, rape hundreds of women, or run for President/PM for socially-conservative political parties.

and the child saved from abortion be the child to find the cure for cancer and other life threatening diseases? the child saved from Abortion could be the one to bring about true social changes that would unite the people of differing political backgrounds. I too can play the "could be" game.

And as for Universal Healthcare, yeah, it's a really good goddamn idea to just go around fucking up your own body. Anybody who does that will cull themselves from the gene pool eventually.and look at these forums. how many people say "I can do what I want to my body as long as I don't 'hurt' anyone else." they have no qualms of hurting themselves. so yea, to alot of people, fucking up their own bodies is a "good idea." Too bad Doctors and Nurses can't say "they fucked themselves up, so let em go."

The thing is, their opinions are justifications of total bullshit. in your opinion. ;)


Remember, I'm just positing what 'they' would say. if anyone who actually falls into the OP's beliefs posts... then they would carry more weight than lil ole me. :p

There are times where I like to be mean and say it's because they only care about you until you're out of the womb, and then you're just cheap labor.

Yo momma is a communist.

No offence intended, mine is too.

But most of the time, I am aware that it's a logical disconnect, and that's really all there is to it.

The only path to absolute consistency is ... being a one-topic bore. Repeating yourself endlessly, word for word. Uncompromising and unconvincing, a moronic beacon which says nothing but "here I am."

Modernity is the transient, the fleeting, the contingent; it is one half of art, the other being the eternal and the immovable.

EDIT: Henceforth, I will use "one" instead of "you" when there is the slightest possibility of my comment being taken personally. Kyronea, you are not consistent. One should not be consistent, unless one is God. Kyronea, you have far superior virtues to consistency, and should not take this slight slight too heartily. One needs consistency to withstand attack, but in offence it is crippled. To advance, one needs flexibility. Consistency is easily defended, but unable to return the favour. Inconsistency, it is said, is the bugbear of small minds. Or more concisely: Consistency is the credo of a loser.

I found this on another forum, and found the question to be intrigueing.

What do you think?That most pro-lifers aren't. They exist, but the majority of those that bear the label really are only anti-abortionists. Good example would be George W. Bush, who earned himself the title of "Texecutioner" before he started yapping about creating a "culture of life".

Let's ask the Great One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE

But then again, sanctity of life only extends to those worthy of it. The lives unworthy of life are simply to be eliminated, no muss and no fuss.
This also applies to abortions, in many cases - predicted birth defects, children of maniacal rapists.

Old news.

Pro-life folks yammered about the sanctity of life in the Reagan era while many of them supported (and still support) the death penalty, the almost-covertly-funded Central- and South American death squads, indiscriminate death in the form of "collateral damage" in preemptive war, and the occasional health care professional slaying, should those people be involved in reproductive services.

The sanctity of life also depends on who's deciding.

Some kill rats and mice, 'cause they're pests.
Some kill bears and lions, 'cause it's fun!
Many kill cows and chickens, 'cause we're hungry.
Some kill pheasants and deer 'cause it's fun, AND we're hungry.
Some kill people...'cause they're pests...AND it's fun!

God, I miss Carlin.

Strong word for "wrong." People can be wrong, without that demonstrating dishonesty.

I guess you mean "not honest with themselves." Well, that's no easy thing, is it?
I meant what I said. A lie is a lie, no matter who you tell it to. I have argued with such people often enough to be confident that they have no problem at all with the idea of human life being snuffed out, as long as it's the life they think deserves it. They are hypocrites, and hypocrites are nothing if not the most accomplished liars in the world. Trust me on this -- when the kind of person the OP describes tells you all life is sacred, they are not talking about your life.

When saving lives means using women's bodies against their will, they're fine with it. But when it means raising their taxes... never!

When saving lives means using women's bodies against their will, they're fine with it. But when it means raising their taxes... never!

Exactly. Conservatives want government out of your life unless you're a woman...or gay.

When saving lives means using women's bodies against their will, they're fine with it. But when it means raising their taxes... never!

except... hasn't it been proven again and again that the DP is costlier to the taxpayer than life w/o parole?

Wouldn't a child, given to the state to raise (orphanage) be an addition to taxes?

except... hasn't it been proven again and again that the DP is costlier to the taxpayer than life w/o parole?

True, conservatives don't seem to mind expenditures that revolve around killing people (military, death penalty) as much.

Wouldn't a child, given to the state to raise (orphanage) be an addition to taxes?

Not if the child is adopted. And since when have conservatives been adamant advocates of well-funded social services?

What I don't get is if the soul is independent of the state of the body, why do they allow taking clinically braindead people off of life support?

And I'm not talking Terri Schavio types I'm talking about no working brain at all.

After all if the "Soul" can appear at conception (When it's a single cell) then it should still be there until every single cell dies.

A lot of them do oppose taking clinically braindead people off of life support.

True, conservatives don't seem to mind expenditures that revolve around killing people (military, death penalty) as much. I can't help but notice your philosophy towards those people changing... ;) :tongue:

Not if the child is adopted. well, that's why I mentioned Orphanages. ;) :tongue:

And since when have conservatives been adamant advocates of well-funded social services? dunno. but I see alot of other things being tacked on to what these people 'believe'.

I have a feeling that people are just tacking on notions to what they think these "Sanctity of Life" people believe in.

A lot of them do oppose taking clinically braindead people off of life support.
Even if the brain has literally fallen out of the body they still want to keep the corpse on life support. That's just plain disturbing.

I can't help but notice your philosophy towards those people changing... ;) :tongue:

well, that's why I mentioned Orphanages. ;) :tongue:

dunno. but I see alot of other things being tacked on to what these people 'believe'.

I have a feeling that people are just tacking on notions to what they think these "Sanctity of Life" people believe in.

The argument is that people who claim to believe in the "Sanctity of Life" ought to believe in X, Y, and Z, but usually believe in Not X, Not Y, and Not Z. Thus, one can question whether they really believe in the "Sanctity of Life" or whether that is just a buzzword they use for their desire to deprive women of choice. Some prominent examples like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Sarah Palin come to mind.

Now, whether that argument is entirely fair is another question, but it is a different argument than to what you seem to be objecting.

The argument is that people who claim to believe in the "Sanctity of Life" ought to believe in X, Y, and Z, but usually believe in Not X, Not Y, and Not Z. Thus, one can question whether they really believe in the "Sanctity of Life" or whether that is just a buzzword they use for their desire to deprive women of choice. Some prominent examples like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Sarah Palin come to mind.

Now, whether that argument is entirely fair is another question, but it is a different argument than to what you seem to be objecting.
really?

Soheran's first post.
When saving lives means using women's bodies against their will, they're fine with it. But when it means raising their taxes... never!
no "usually", no 'Ought' to. just statements that they are fine with it.

then his reply.
True, conservatives don't seem to mind expenditures that revolve around killing people (military, death penalty) as much.
again, no 'Ought' to, no "usually" but again conservatives don't mind...

and considering the OP is focusing on those who believe in the "Sanctity of Life"...

now whether or not they actually do believe in the "Sanctity of Life" and hold those viewpoints is up to any of those who do believe in the "Sanctity of Life" who do sound off here.

then add Geniasis's comment.
A lot of them do oppose taking clinically braindead people off of life support.
plus the attempt to add circumcision as one of the things those that believe in the "Sanctity of Life" also believe in...

yeah, alot of things are being tacked on.

I can't help but notice your philosophy towards those people changing... ;) :tongue:

I am nothing if not consistent.

well, that's why I mentioned Orphanages. ;)

Healthy children put up for adoption immediately after birth generally find adopters, or so I understand.

but I see alot of other things being tacked on to what these people 'believe'.

It is a hallmark of the conservative right that, when it comes to social services, less is better.

Since this stance pretty inevitably conflicts with the substantive capacity to protect life on the part of the poor and the disadvantaged, it's perfectly legitimate to question their motives when it comes to their attempts to restrict the autonomy of women so that fetuses may live.

no "usually", no 'Ought' to. just statements that they are fine with it.

"They" is a pronoun.

In this case, the noun it represents is the group of people mentioned in the OP, the ones who oppose abortion rights as well as universal health care.

again, no 'Ought' to, no "usually" but again conservatives don't mind...

"Conservatives don't mind" in and of itself is a general statement, but not an inherently universal one.

It is an element of conservatism to both oppose universal health care and oppose abortion rights. That obviously does not mean that every single person who could be reasonably identified as a conservative holds by that stance. But if this is our standard, we cannot meaningfully speak of "conservatism" at all, because none of its specific policy stances are embraced by every single one of the people who lay claim to the term.

In any case, this quibble has nothing whatsoever to do with the general point of my post. If you mean to suggest that there are people who support universal health care but not abortion rights, or abortion rights but not universal health care, I am aware of that fact. It does not change the reality that plenty of people do abide by the combination of stances that the OP and I addressed, and that there is a real tension, if not an outright inconsistency, in those stances.