Apr 8, 2009
I'll let you kill babies if you let me kill murderers
So, I just read this article:
It is about this rule that suggests that health care providers not be forced to provide services they are morally opposed to. The main argument against this rule is that it limits reproductive choice (whatever that means), and that it was ideologically driven. Similarly for the stem cell debate--scientists suggested that the ban was standing in the way of good science and that it was only an ideological ploy.
How are these ideological aversions to different things any different from an ideological aversion to torturing terrorists, in light of the fact that doing so may provide useful information? Or how about capital punishment, given that it will at least most certainly prevent the executed from committing further crime?
Both sides in these debates seem to be ideologues in some situations, but ridicule any thought of "ideology" in an other.What do you think about this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It's ideologies all the way down (on both sides).
If not ideology, then capricious and arbitrary whim.
-Brady
I'm actually curious to know if you'd really go for a one-to-one trade of baby deaths for terrorist tortures. If not, maybe some other exchange rate?
Not babies, but perhaps some stem cells. Actually, lots of stem cells. Steve Leavitt has a paper about abortion reducing crime, and in his discussion, he talks about how much value we would have to put on on aborted baby to make it worth it. Interesting.
Also, a couple weeks back at a conference dinner, I was talking to a professor who was reticent to draw any kind of line at which life began. After discussing it, he was forced to conclude that murdering little babies was not so morally objectionable as murdering adults, as the smallest little babies still lack what he called "free will." It was an interesting conversation.
I guess my biggest question is, what the heck is wrong with ideals, and why should'nt they play a role in debating everything? Ideology has come to be a bad word for stupid crazy religious beliefs.
I was actually going to title the post using stem cells instead of babies, but didnt find it catchy enough.
Why don't we just kill all the baby killers and be done with it. That's my 'ideology' and I'm gonna stick to it.
I also wonder how this differs from members of certain religions such as Jehovas Witnesses who don't give blood, religions who don't allow for after-death surgeries. By taking away the rights and beliefs and individuals, what is the point of the First Amendment?
You definitely win the prize for most inflammatory blog post headline, but from the comments it sounds like that's what you were going for.
I think this is a tricky issue - if I am a Doctor who opposes blood transfusions, where does my right to believe in that conflict with my patient's right to live?
My seminary teacher once told a story about her daughter, a doctor, who had to perform an abortion to save a woman's life. I know that's an extreme (and rare) example, but I guess that my position would be that doctors should do what's best for their patients, not impose their own beliefs on them. Of course, I don't think anyone should be forced to perform abortions, but, to me, contraceptives/blood transfusions don't fall in the same category.
Diana, blood transfusions or contraceptives dont fall in the same catagory because you dont have any moral issue (at least, I think) with contraceptives or blood transfusions. Some people have major issues with them, and see them as serious as an abortion.
I guess the point of the post is that both sides vacillate back and forth when the side with "science" and when they are ideologues.
Would you recommend a client take a tax position that would benefit them, that they want to take, that has a good chance of not being overruled by the service, but that you feel is a blatant violation of the code? Should you be bound by law to make such recommendations, as if your clients couldnt go somewhere else.
Anyways, enough on this. So far, everyone (but Brady) is missing the whole point of the post.
I could say I'm slightly offended by your claim that I missed the point of the post. Anyone would clearly see my previous comment as a solution proposed in jest, and not a serious proposal. I completely see your point about ideologies and science having different levels of influence in different people on different issues. I just thought it would be fun to kill all the baby killers, and that way, they can still kill the babies, and we can still kill them!
I can only gauge understanding by one's comments. Sorry to offend.
To respond directly to your proposal:
Perhaps we have not considered that babies are not doing enough to defend themselves. Don't we believe in personal responsibility and self-sufficiency?
Jeff- I did notice that you wanted to drop the issue, but I have a question about a related manner and thought I'd post it anyway.
Do you believe that people act in consistently rational ways (at least in public)? Should they? Maybe I'm requesting a post on your thoughts...
And for what it's worth, I'm all for teaching fetuses (feti?) self-defense moves. I can't imagine a more awesome headline than something like "Doctors and Pro-Choice Mom Thwarted: Fetus' Nunchucks and Left-cross Too Much to Handle". Maybe we should be doing research on the potential pedagogical properties of ultrasound frequencies (as a potential for transmitting these self-defense skills). Of course, if any were discovered doctors would be forced to administer these treatments whether or not Mom approved...
-Brady
I dont believe that people act in consistently rational ways. And, luckily for me, my livelihood somewhat depends on this being the case. Much of accounting research has to do with market prices and accounting issues. If everyone were rational and information were perfect, there would be no interesting stories to tell regarding securities returns and accounting or tax issues. Given that information is not perfect, and that, I believe, people are not rational, there are stories to tell.
Why dont I think people are consistently rational? I dont know. In general, even if people were "rational", they still might be stupid. For example, if your internal discount rate is 10000%, payday loans are extremly rational. At issue with many things people call "rationality" are simple preference judgments. As long as someone is internally consistent, they can be both stupid (from other's points of view), and rational.
That is all I have to say about that. The problem, Brady, is that accountants dont get paid to think about these high-brow issues. Such matters are well about my pay scale.
Post a Comment