PDA

View Full Version : None of our business...



Pages : [1] 2

Shang
01-31-2009, 09:02 PM
...anybody want to comment on the Mother of Fourteen...?

WX
01-31-2009, 09:07 PM
Are we talking about the IVF sextuplets?
If so then yes, I think it was stupid to implant 6 eggs. Every one of these babies is dangerously underweight. If they survive they will have health problems probably till they do die.

Memphis Mike
01-31-2009, 09:08 PM
She's a slut.

pila
01-31-2009, 09:10 PM
That will be a house full alright.

Nanoose
01-31-2009, 09:11 PM
Are we talking about the IVF sextuplets?
If so then yes, I think it was stupid to implant 6 eggs. Every one of these babies is dangerously underweight. If they survive they will have health problems probably till they do die.

Uh....not 6, 8. :rolleyes:

Bob Adams
01-31-2009, 09:14 PM
Already two threads on it. Living in her mother's small house, unmarried, and I'd be willing to bet she'll be on the public dole before it's all done.

Shang
01-31-2009, 09:25 PM
The philosophical issue is whether or not it IS any of our business.
I have an opinion on the case, but if I wish everyone else to leave me the hell alone, then do I have a right to express that opinion?
I dunno...
No doubt there are people who could take issue with my own lifestyle, so who am I to comment on this woman's decision?

(Biting my tongue to keep from expressing my opinion on the situation...)

George Jung
01-31-2009, 10:27 PM
Well, she somehow found herself in a situation where her case became 'newsworthy'; does that mean we can talk about it? I personally don't care what she does, and even if she gets Assistance, I won't notice the difference. But presumably, if the Public is paying the bills (and they will be quite substantial), then the argument can be made - it's our business.

BTW, just curious - did you happen to read the story? It's a bit sad.

WX
01-31-2009, 10:51 PM
8! The doctor should have explained the considerable risks to the babies to her. If he did then she has to be just plain stupid....or insane.
Memphis, how can she be a slut in this instance if they are IVF babies?

Rigadog
02-02-2009, 09:23 AM
If women were meant to have more than two babies at a time they would look quite different.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/She-wolf_suckles_Romulus_and_Remus.jpg/250px-She-wolf_suckles_Romulus_and_Remus.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:She-wolf_suckles_Romulus_and_Remus.jpg)

ahp
02-02-2009, 02:06 PM
I read she has another six at home. That is a grand total of 14!

Old Sailor
02-02-2009, 02:58 PM
The taxpayers will support all those kids.
Old Sailor

rbgarr
02-02-2009, 05:14 PM
How did she pay for the in vitro? Isn't that pretty expensive> She's unemployed afaik.

Paul Pless
02-02-2009, 05:28 PM
...anybody want to comment on the Mother of Fourteen...?I'm not gonna comment on the woman in question, however I am astounded at the apparent questionable medical ethics employed by the doctors that performed the in vitro procedure in the first place. That is astoundingly poor judgement.

Hwyl
02-02-2009, 05:43 PM
There was an young woman,
Who lived in a shoe;
She had so many children,
She didn't know what to do.
She gave them some broth,
With plenty of bread;
She kissed them all sweetly,
And sent them to bed.

James McMullen
02-02-2009, 08:16 PM
As the son of an identical twin, I have to say that purposely having sextuplets is tantamount to planning to neglect your children. To raise one infant at a time properly is hard work, two at a time is just barely possible. . .three or more absolutely requires extra help from the outside. This woman's selfishness is a detriment to her children and they will unfortunately almost certainly need to be supported by the rest of our society. A responsible parent would never do such a thing!:mad:

rbgarr
02-02-2009, 08:54 PM
There was an young woman,
Who lived in a shoe;
She had so many children,
She didn't know what to do.
She gave them some broth,
With plenty of bread;
She kissed them all sweetly,
And sent them to bed.

The version I learned had this line instead of 'She kissed them all sweetly, and sent them to bed'

She whipped them all soundly, and put them to bed.

Tinman
02-02-2009, 09:01 PM
I mentione this on one pf the other threads, so forgive me for repeating myself. Rather than wring our hands about the quality of the decsion, why not just ban invitro outright? That way, Dr's aren't faced with the ethical issues that surround it and the state doesn't have to pay out gobs of cash till these kids grow up and become taxpayers. Makes sense to me.

elf
02-02-2009, 09:05 PM
A responsible parent would never do such a thing!:mad:

And how many people do you know that have only the kids they planned to have?

elf
02-02-2009, 09:07 PM
I mentione this on one pf the other threads, so forgive me for repeating myself. Rather than wring our hands about the quality of the decsion, why not just ban invitro outright? That way, Dr's aren't faced with the ethical issues that surround it and the state doesn't have to pay out gobs of cash till these kids grow up and become taxpayers. Makes sense to me.

Moderation is not in Tinman's life experience, we see yet again.

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 07:57 AM
good morning Elf...how ya doin?

Tinman
02-03-2009, 09:01 AM
Moderation is not in Tinman's life experience, we see yet again.

So how do we moderate this? Only implant 3 or 4 embryo's maybe? All I suggested was we don't need to get into this mess in the first place by banning the procedure.

Popeye
02-03-2009, 09:04 AM
ban the procedure

for who ?

Tinman
02-03-2009, 09:08 AM
Oh I dunno, but I think anyone capable of conception might be a good place to start. You had someone else in mind perhaps?

Popeye
02-03-2009, 09:11 AM
anyone capable of conception might be a good place to start.

very reasonable

Tinman
02-03-2009, 09:17 AM
I suppose you have a better idea to offer?

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 09:30 AM
why don't you compare the number of successful births of a single child against the number of multipul births...BEFORE talking about banning?

Popeye
02-03-2009, 09:36 AM
I suppose you have a better idea to offer? no , not really , i just like tinpans loaded messages , irrational responses and political agenda presented in a way we can all enjoy

carry on

Tinman
02-03-2009, 09:57 AM
So you think a common sense approach to this isn't valid then...

Tinman
02-03-2009, 10:01 AM
You know the old saying about "common sense" doncha Norm? So with that in mind, I am not surprised at all that people would find ways to object to the obvious.

Popeye
02-03-2009, 10:01 AM
a common sense approach to this isn't valid then...

your view(s) on how to improve our offspring are greatly appreciated

got any more breeding tips ?

Tinman
02-03-2009, 10:03 AM
Didn't know you needed assistance in that regard. Is it the rearing, or begetting you need help with?

Popeye
02-03-2009, 10:09 AM
i'm a little fuzzy on the procreation part tinler , help me with your ideas on improvements to the race

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 10:21 AM
i'm a little fuzzy on the procreation part tinler , help me with your ideas on improvements to the race


oh dear...

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 10:22 AM
why don't you compare the number of successful births of a single child against the number of multipul births...BEFORE talking about banning?

didn't notice this?

Popeye
02-03-2009, 10:25 AM
I am not surprised at all that people would find ways to object to the obvious.

you mean , i have to be reasonable ?

Tinman
02-03-2009, 10:29 AM
I don't see how that matters. To me it makes sense to care about ALL the children, not just the convienient ones. If a medical procedure has this kind of problem that raises as many ethical questions as this one does, not to mention the economic costs, then seriously considereing banning it strikes me as a good idea. We "ban" smoking because it is not good for you, There are now municipalities and organizations that want to ban transfats because of the health risk, we even ban pesticide use for cosmetic reasons. Here in Ottawa wwe even had a nutcase city councillor want to ban the use of deoderants and perfumes in public places [ can you imagine being on a city bus in July next to someone who didn't use deoderant and hadn't showered for a few days? ] so how is this any different?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-03-2009, 10:32 AM
why don't you compare the number of successful births of a single child against the number of multipul births...BEFORE talking about banning?

There are many stats you might like to look into....

Live births per treatment cycle. - My father in law gets between 92 and 95 per hundred - I've yet to hear of a doctor getting better than 30.

Cerebral palsy rates - staggering all to often.

Percentage with "Special Educational Needs".

Tinman
02-03-2009, 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by Phillip Allen http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2092614#post2092614)
"..why don't you compare the number of successful births of a single child against the number of multipul births...BEFORE talking about banning?.."

To me it makes sense to care about ALL the children, not just the convienient ones. If a medical procedure has this kind of problem that raises as many ethical questions as this one does, not to mention the economic costs, then seriously considering banning it strikes me as a good idea. We "ban" smoking because it is not good for you, there are now municipalities and organizations that want to ban transfats because of the health risk, we even ban pesticide use for cosmetic reasons. Here in Ottawa wwe even had a nutcase city councillor want to ban the use of deoderants and perfumes in public places [ can you imagine being on a city bus in July next to someone who didn't use deoderant and hadn't showered for a few days? ] so how is this any different?

Popeye
02-03-2009, 10:33 AM
so how is this any different?

it is neat how you actually manage to argue in favor of mandatory iq testing :D

Tinman
02-03-2009, 10:33 AM
you mean , i have to be reasonable ?

I twould be a refreshing change..

Chris Coose
02-03-2009, 10:35 AM
, then seriously considereing banning it strikes me as a good idea.

Strike 3. Yuuuuurrrrrree out!

Popeye
02-03-2009, 10:42 AM
If a medical procedure has this kind of problem that raises as many ethical questions as this one does, not to mention the economic costs, then seriously considering banning it strikes me as a good idea.

the cost of one open heart surgery is running at around 60k ~ 100k

too expensive eh , banned perhaps until the price comes down ?

Tinman
02-03-2009, 10:43 AM
it is neat how you actually manage to argue in favor of mandatory iq testing :D

Only you could pull that kind of conclusion out of what I just said. Unless you are talking about for certain members of city council. If that is the case, I completely agree.

Nanoose
02-03-2009, 10:47 AM
I mentione this on one pf the other threads, so forgive me for repeating myself. Rather than wring our hands about the quality of the decsion, why not just ban invitro outright? That way, Dr's aren't faced with the ethical issues that surround it and the state doesn't have to pay out gobs of cash till these kids grow up and become taxpayers. Makes sense to me.

Because no one can make any money using that approach, and the ultimate ethic at play here is $$. After all, it is the US of A, Tinner.

Nanoose
02-03-2009, 10:50 AM
Moderation is not in Tinman's life experience, we see yet again.

Evidently there is no legislation governing this (maybe there will be now!) and it is a decision between dr. (remember, $$$) and mother.

However, there seem to be "guidelines" within the field - a mother under 30 receives fewer implantations than one under 35 who receives fewer than one under 40, etc.....all the way up to the 90 year old who is implanted with a million in the offchance that 1 may take...:rolleyes:

Popeye
02-03-2009, 10:50 AM
mental note of things to ban :

deodorant on buses
smoking in public
pesticides
in vitro fertilization

Nanoose
02-03-2009, 10:53 AM
'Common sense' is defined as something which is universally agreed upon and accepted. Your suggestion is therefore not 'common sense', it's simply your idea, since others obviously disagree with you.

I'm not sure...'common sense' may be culturally respected, or generationally understood/accepted, but universal it is not.

This is the arrogance of the capitalistic system at its worst. Dr's out for fame and $$, and a woman of possibly similar ilk. I cannot think of another reason for this.

Nanoose
02-03-2009, 10:56 AM
the cost of one open heart surgery is running at around 60k ~ 100k

too expensive eh , banned perhaps until the price comes down ?

Na...just have it done in Canada. ;)

Tinman
02-03-2009, 11:19 AM
I'm not sure...'common sense' may be culturally respected, or generationally understood/accepted, but universal it is not.

This is the arrogance of the capitalistic system at its worst. Dr's out for fame and $$, and a woman of possibly similar ilk. I cannot think of another reason for this.

Nanoose, you seem to equate evil with capitalism. Now I find that remarkable considering virtually "ALL" of the great advances in science, medicine, architecture and so on, have come from it. [ Unless you believe the Soviets who tried to convince us they invented everything from the hammer to open heart surgery. ] Perhaps you have a better system in mind? If there is such a place with a system like you might suggest, I am concluding that you live there. After all with Capitalism being so evil, you would never be so hypocritical as to condemn it and at the same time enjoy it's benefits, right? Ours may not be perfect, in fact it is a very long way from that, but for all her warts and wrinkles, she is by far the prettiest girl at the dance.

Nanoose
02-03-2009, 11:21 AM
Nanoose, you seem to equate evil with capitalism. Now I find that remarkable considering virtually "ALL" of the great advances in science, medicine, architecture and so on, have come from it. [ Unless you believe the Soviets who tried to convince us they invented everything from the hammer to open heart surgery. ] Perhaps you have a better system in mind? If there is such a place with a system like you might suggest, I am concluding that you live there. After all with Capitalism being so evil, you would never be so hypocritical as to condemn it and at the same time enjoy it's benefits, right? Ours may not be perfect, in fact it is a very long way from that, but for all her warts and wrinkles, she is by far the prettiest girl at the dance.

No - I just noted it was the "arrogance of" the system....one of the warts, as you also noted. Nothing is perfect in an imperfect world.

Tinman
02-03-2009, 11:22 AM
Glad we cleared that up.

Popeye
02-03-2009, 12:09 PM
whew ..

Osborne Russell
02-03-2009, 12:44 PM
Is over-population my businsess? Gee I don't know. Is there over-population? Gee I don't know. Should I have an opinion? Gee I don't know. Does it affect me? Gee I don't know. Should I look into it? Gee I don't know. Should I know anything about it? Gee I don't know. Is it my responsibility in some way?

Kaa
02-03-2009, 12:50 PM
This is the arrogance of the capitalistic system at its worst.

Ah, no. This is one of the consequences of freedom, freedom to do what other people disapprove of.

A question of liberty, not of an economic system.

Kaa

James McMullen
02-03-2009, 03:51 PM
And how many people do you know that have only the kids they planned to have?

Well, to start with, there's myself, all three of my siblings, both of my wife's siblings, and both my wife's and my own parents. . . .so there's more than a dozen people right off the top of my head with enough foresight to plan for the future. There's lots and lots and lots of ways of all sorts from abstinence to contraception to abortion available to postpone or avoid having children you're not ready or able to take care of.

Nanoose
02-03-2009, 05:52 PM
Ah, no. This is one of the consequences of freedom, freedom to do what other people disapprove of.

A question of liberty, not of an economic system.

Kaa

No....she had to pay for the invitro. It wasn't free.

It may be a 'freely operating economic system', but it's definately about $$.

Kaa
02-03-2009, 06:19 PM
No....she had to pay for the invitro. It wasn't free.

What difference does it make?

Imagine her living in a country with free medical care, say Cuba :D Would the ethical issues in this case change just because she didn't have to pay for the fertilization?

Kaa

Tinman
02-03-2009, 07:42 PM
Is over-population my businsess? Gee I don't know. Is there over-population? Gee I don't know. Should I have an opinion? Gee I don't know. Does it affect me? Gee I don't know. Should I look into it? Gee I don't know. Should I know anything about it? Gee I don't know. Is it my responsibility in some way?

Unfortunately, the state makes it your business when they use your taxes to fund it. [ I'm talking about invitro here ]. Overpopulation has been beaten to death with a stick on another thread so I won't reopen that debate.

rbgarr
02-03-2009, 11:00 PM
I mentione this on one pf the other threads, so forgive me for repeating myself. Rather than wring our hands about the quality of the decsion, why not just ban invitro outright? That way, Dr's aren't faced with the ethical issues that surround it and the state doesn't have to pay out gobs of cash till these kids grow up and become taxpayers. Makes sense to me.

Welcome to Red China everyone!!

Tinman
02-04-2009, 03:58 PM
Welcome to Red China everyone!!

Hardly. There is a vast difference between empregnating a woman with multiple eggs with the hope that some of them survive, and "forced abortion".

Kaa
02-04-2009, 04:06 PM
I am somewhat unclear as to why you dislike in vitro fertilization so much, Tinman. What's wrong about it?

Kaa

Tinman
02-04-2009, 04:11 PM
I am somewhat unclear as to why you dislike in vitro fertilization so much, Tinman. What's wrong about it?

Kaa

Kaa. to answer that requires me to give a theological answer. In short, it is because the process ususally results in the death of one or more embryo's [ a politically correct word for baby ] and since I view each child as a gift from God, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it's conception, to intentionally engage in a medical procedure that puts unborn children at such a high risk, is unnacceptable to me. Not only this, it violates the childs right to know and be raised by both parents. That is the short version of a very long answer.

Kaa
02-04-2009, 04:14 PM
Kaa. to answer that requires me to give a theological answer.

Ah, I see.

Kaa

Popeye
02-05-2009, 09:12 AM
because the process ususally results in the death of one or more embryo's

every sperm is sacred

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-05-2009, 10:40 AM
What difference does it make?

Imagine her living in a country with free medical care, say Cuba :D Would the ethical issues in this case change just because she didn't have to pay for the fertilization?

Kaa

Not the important ones.

For instance, the appallingly bad results in terms of damaged children.

Nanoose
02-05-2009, 10:54 AM
Welcome to Red China everyone!!

This was in response to Tinman's thoughts that perhaps in vitro should be banned.

Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should do that thing. Can does not = good/ok/alright (whatever).

I think this case has give the bio-ethicists something to consider, and I wouldn't be surprised if something more than guidelines result from this incident.

Some societies put the society first, some put the individual first. We know all too well the view upheld in the USA. (see Kaa's #57 above).

The "Red China" comment comes from one in a society where the individual is crowned king. Don't interfere with this woman's rights. Fine.

That really is ok, except the current result of that philosophy is that her decision will now be a burden on you, the American taxpayer, and you are all screaming bloody murder.

If you knew she had a way to raise all 14 kids well without it costing you a cent, say, her plans that this will make her famous and a millionaire, you'd be fine. None of you would be making any comments.

But the possibility that her freedom may hit you in your pocket book, i.e. impact your freedom, has you all screaming. Her rights are now impacting your rights. But this is the inevitable result in a country where freedom is the supreme good. Freedoms will conflict. In those cases, who's freedom wins? How do you decide?

For a doctor to agree to implant 8 embryos in a young, single mother who already has 6 young children causes all kinds of flags to go off.

Sure seems to be all about $$ to me....

James McMullen
02-05-2009, 11:20 AM
Oh my goodness. . . .
I just heard the news that one of my old college roommates had just undergone fertility treatments with his wife and is now expecting TRIPLETS! What an eerie coincidence in light of this thread. Apparently he was concerned that something like this might happen and begged his wife not to implant all three ova, but she went ahead and had it done anyways and now he's expecting TRIPLETS!

Yikes!~

Kaa
02-05-2009, 11:38 AM
...and you are all screaming bloody murder.

Please note that I am not.


If you knew she had a way to raise all 14 kids well without it costing you a cent, say, her plans that this will make her famous and a millionaire, you'd be fine. None of you would be making any comments.

Not true, there are lots of comments above how this is/will be bad for the kids.


Freedoms will conflict. In those cases, who's freedom wins? How do you decide?

The more important freedom wins. In my opinion, the freedom to decide how many kids you want is more important than the freedom of paying very slightly less taxes.

Kaa

Dan McCosh
02-05-2009, 11:41 AM
What are the ethics concerning this kind of science project?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-05-2009, 11:43 AM
.....
The more important freedom wins. In my opinion, the freedom to decide how many kids you want is more important than the freedom of paying very slightly less taxes.

Kaa

And thus should be available and free for all who want it?

Kaa
02-05-2009, 11:45 AM
And thus should be available and free for all who want it?

What, deciding how many kids you want?

Yep, available and free for all :D

Kaa

Nanoose
02-05-2009, 11:51 AM
Not true, there are lots of comments above how this is/will be bad for the kids.

Not proven.
a. she may be an exceptional mother
b. she may have help



The more important freedom wins. In my opinion, the freedom to decide how many kids you want is more important than the freedom of paying very slightly less taxes.

Who decides "more important"?

Should the decision re "how many kids you want" be related at all to mental stability? to ability to support/raise/nurture? So, if a mildly downes syndrome woman who loves her dollies, wants to have countless children, that is her decision and her right?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-05-2009, 11:55 AM
What, deciding how many kids you want?

Yep, available and free for all :D

Kaa

I've seen what happens - and think it a pi$s poor idea, trying to produce offspring from an animal unfit to breed, leads all too often to tragedy - and thus to lifetimes of misery.

Kaa
02-05-2009, 11:58 AM
Who decides "more important"?

For myself, I do.

For the society, the legislature and the judges.


Should the decision re "how many kids you want" be related at all to mental stability? to ability to support/raise/nurture? So, if a mildly downes syndrome woman who loves her dollies, wants to have countless children, that is her decision and her right?

Do check out Buck vs. Bell (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=200 context in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell).

But the first question is who decides how many children can a woman have.

Kaa

Kaa
02-05-2009, 12:00 PM
I've seen what happens - and think it a pi$s poor idea, trying to produce offspring from an animal unfit to breed, leads all too often to tragedy - and thus to lifetimes of misery.

I presume you think eugenics is an excellent idea, right?

Kaa

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-05-2009, 12:00 PM
I presume you think eugenics is an excellent idea, right?

Kaa

A presumption from ignorance.

Nanoose
02-05-2009, 12:03 PM
Do check out Buck vs. Bell (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=200 context in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell).

But the first question is who decides how many children can a woman have.

Kaa

Yes...the state had the power to impinge on Carrie's freedoms. States do have lots of power. Look at Russia, at North Korea, at.... And that obviously makes the state right. I see.

Not sure about your second point....you already said the individual has that right.

Kaa
02-05-2009, 12:42 PM
A presumption from ignorance.

Then enlighten me. From your post it seems that you consider some humans fit to breed and some not. How does this work?

Kaa

Kaa
02-05-2009, 12:47 PM
Yes...the state had the power to impinge on Carrie's freedoms. States do have lots of power. Look at Russia, at North Korea, at.... And that obviously makes the state right. I see.

Not sure about your second point....you already said the individual has that right.

Keep in mind the difference between descriptive -- how the world is -- and normative -- how we would like the world to be.

There is some difference between my opinions and what the legal system of the United States thinks :D

Kaa

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-05-2009, 04:21 PM
Then enlighten me. From your post it seems that you consider some humans fit to breed and some not. How does this work?

Kaa

Some can some can't - easy.

Nanoose
02-05-2009, 08:13 PM
Interesting connection to this thread in our news today:
05/02/2009 7:20:37 PM
60-year-old gives birth to twins
View more MSN videos (http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-ca&tab=&from=inline&fg=gtlv2)Go to CTV.ca (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/canada/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&show=True&number=5&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&feedname=CTV-NATIONAL_V3&newsitemid=CTVNews%252f20090205%252fmom_sixty_0902 05)
CTV.ca News Staff

Ranjit Hayer's two boys were delivered seven weeks prematurely by caesarean section at Calgary's Foothills Hospital on Tuesday.

The woman reportedly conceived after receiving fertility treatments in India, although the health region wouldn't provide details.

The woman could not receive In vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in Canada "as the cutoff is about 50 years of age for IVF," reported CTV Calgary health reporter Karen Owen on Tuesday.

Cal Greene, the medical director of the Calgary Foothills Fertility program, said he believes it's unethical to treat women in their 60s and 70s for IVF ...

Speaking hypothetically, University of Toronto bio-ethicist Kerry Bowman said a 60-year-old woman would have been turned away for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in Canada.

"We wouldn't be doing this in Canada because she (would be) considered too old," he told CTV Newsnet on Thursday. India, meanwhile, follows a more "free market" approach with these types of cases, he added.

Although it's difficult to nail down an age when it's no longer appropriate to have kids, giving birth at 60 is very much "outside of our comfort zone" here in Canada, Bowman said.

But, he ensured doctors here don't turn pregnant patients away, even those considered to be at an advanced age for pregnancy.

When it comes to conducting IFV treatments to older wannabe moms, Bowman advises dealing with the problem of age on a case-by-case, hospital-by-hospital basis.

Even at age 50 a woman can conceive without intervention, so it's difficult to deny a couple that opportunity, Bowman said.

It can be a struggle however when a person owns embryos and insists on having them implanted against expert advice, Bowman said.

The IVF debate took off internationally again late last month after a mother of six in Southern California gave birth to octuplets with the help of fertility treatments.

"I think we need public debate about what the parameters are," Bowman said.

With a report from CTV Calgary and files from The Canadian Press

Kaa
02-05-2009, 08:32 PM
Cal Greene, the medical director of the Calgary Foothills Fertility program, said he believes it's unethical to treat women in their 60s and 70s for IVF ...

Yeah, well, he has an opinion about what's ethical and what's unethical. Our own Tinman also has an opinion about what's ethical and what's unethical about in vitro fertilization. I'm sure lots of other people have lots of other opinions.

What makes one opinion better than another one?

Kaa

Nanoose
02-05-2009, 08:36 PM
Nothing, in a relativistic society. There is no "better" with relativism.

So, as we talked about earlier, it comes down to personal well being (freedoms) versus society's well being.

I do find it interesting that in Canada there is a position that some things aren't done (for the good of the person, or the society, or whatever) but in the US its not even an issue as personal rights and freedoms always trump.

Again, given relativism, there will be no answer.....but finding a balance between both holds more promise than holding one (either one) at the expense of the other.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 05:34 AM
....
What makes one opinion better than another one?

Kaa

Interesting question, fancy a stab at answering it?

Tinman
02-06-2009, 09:01 AM
Yeah, well, he has an opinion about what's ethical and what's unethical. Our own Tinman also has an opinion about what's ethical and what's unethical about in vitro fertilization. I'm sure lots of other people have lots of other opinions.

What makes one opinion better than another one?

Kaa

This whole thread points out in stark contrast, why trying to run a system based on relativism dosn't work. Because you have no clearly defined set of guidelines governing what is right or wrong, acceptable or not, then everything is reduced to nothing but opinion. With that as a basis, then eventually everything is acceptable, becuase it is only opinion governs what is right or wrong. Since these opinions can and do change over time, so does the idea of what is "right and wrong" There is a saying you may be aware of that sume this up.
"when everything goes, everythings' gone"
In order to maintain a civil society, there simply must be a clearly defined code of conduct that all are required to adhere too. To do other wise, is like paying foot ball with no rules or sidelines. before long, you simply have nothing but a mass of confusion, and the game fails. For the vast majority of our time here in NA., we have had our laws and governments built around the judeo Christian ethic. Like it or not, it has served us remarkably well. We seem to get into trouble when we refuse to live by or accept that as a basis for our society. This does not impinge upon those who are not religious, it is simply the standard by wich we used to govern ourselves. Now that it has been basically forgotten, you see the result, and it isn't pretty.

Popeye
02-06-2009, 09:22 AM
legislation is not law

read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_law)

Nanoose
02-06-2009, 10:53 AM
Point, Pops?

Popeye
02-06-2009, 10:58 AM
Point, Pops?

tinman is confused , again

it's a starting point to see if he reports back on what he thinks he just read , kinda like potty training

Nanoose
02-06-2009, 11:01 AM
I missed something (yet again!!)....what's he confused about?

Popeye
02-06-2009, 11:04 AM
....what's he confused about?

got an hour , pull up a chair

Nanoose
02-06-2009, 11:13 AM
got an hour , pull up a chair

yup - go ahead
(I know you are a man of few words, Pops, and I appreciate point form...:))

paul oman
02-06-2009, 11:21 AM
so what is her offspring's 'carbon footprint', welfare load, public resource drain going to be in 40 or 50 years?

Might as well go out and buy an SUV, drive it around the neighborhood for fun, then sign up for Obama welfare.

There isn't much you can do to the planet or our economy that will make even a tiny dent compared to her future impact...

Popeye
02-06-2009, 11:24 AM
well , there is this little gem to contend with


why not just ban invitro outright? That way, Dr's aren't faced with the ethical issues that surround it and the state doesn't have to pay out gobs of cash till these kids grow up and become taxpayers. Makes sense to me.

amongst others , not to belabor the point , it's just that, i live in canada , and as such like to think safe medical procedures are available for parents and others wishing to use them

too esoteric ?

Nanoose
02-06-2009, 11:29 AM
Canada does seem to have some restrictions in place for IVF, however, so our situation is different than in the US.

However, perhaps Tinman has a point, i.e. from evolutionary thought, if you are incapable of reproducing, perhaps there is a good reason; from a social POV, there is a world full of children without parents and needing a home. Without IVF it is possible more of them would be adopted, loved and cared for.

He may have a couple of good points there....no?

mmd
02-06-2009, 11:43 AM
I listened to a current-affairs program on CBC a few nights ago that was discussing this topic. Guests on the show were reps from the Canadian & USA medical community that make med society policy on IVF. Both said that their respective agencies have policies in-place regarding how many fertilized ovum are to be placed in the woman's womb. Though it varied with age (older women get more because of a higher failure rate with increasing age), maximum ovum placement was 4 in the USA and 3 in Canada. The numbers were arrived at by the medical societies in consideration of the risk to the woman in carrying multiple fetuses to term.

So, the doctor who impregnated the Californian woman did so in contradiction to the guidelines established by his own medical association.

Certainly a topic that can generate pretty heated discussion on the ethics of medical technology, societal norms, and personal freedoms...

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 11:44 AM
there is a world full of children without parents and needing a homeAs an adoptive parent, I can tell you it's nowhere near that simple. If everyone who had to go through what it takes to adopt, the species would have died out long ago.


Originally Posted by Tinman
. . . why not just ban invitro outright? That way, Dr's aren't faced with the ethical issues that surround it and the state doesn't have to pay out gobs of cash till these kids grow up and become taxpayers. Makes sense to me.Abuse of a practice is not argument against its use. Timman, as he stated, wants to ban IVF for theological reasons.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 11:51 AM
....
Abuse of a practice is not argument against its use. Timman, as he stated, wants to ban IVF for theological reasons.

Others want it stopped for entirely practical reasons.

pefjr
02-06-2009, 11:57 AM
Well now, this is interesting. Earthlings discussing rights and liberties of having children in the 21 Century. And not considering the future. Look into the time capsule a moment.

It took 120,000 years for Man to reach 1 Billion in population. In 1850 ,the world population stood about 1.5 Billion, then doubled in the next 100 yrs to 3 Billion (1950), doubled again the next 50 yrs, to 6 Billion(2000).Then added 1 Billion in the last 10 years. It's a parabolic rise. That makes it my business if I care about future Mankind. Of course it will take a world awareness that is missing at the present. Just do the math, you can only stuff so many sardines in one can.

That is a huge problem that the current generation is going to have to deal with, or, to hell with it, pass the problem on.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 12:05 PM
Whether it's a good idea or not, it hardly seems that one women having that many children warrants making a law. It's not likely to become popular. The total impact of IVF on the growth of population is negligible - and exactly the same argument can be used equally well for the Chinese fertility policy.

My opinion of Tinman's argument that his conception of the "Judeo-Christin ethic" must be the basis for law depends on how he wants to achieve that end. If he wants to convince people that this is a good idea, so that they'll then elect people who have similar ideas, then sure, why not? His is one opinion among many, and that's how democracy works. It is, like it or not, relativistic, at least to some degree. OTOH, if he is saying that his idea of the Judeo-Christin ethic (there are other versions, equally Judeo-Christian; see TomF for details) must be the basis for law irrespective of the opinion of the rest of his fellow citizens - well that's another matter altogether. That's the position of the Taliban.

Nanoose
02-06-2009, 12:11 PM
Another thought re IVF....
Is this the natural result of militant feminism in our culture? Men are beyond sidelined. The male is no longer needed.

Tinman
02-06-2009, 12:16 PM
The 'opinion' you refer to is called 'voting'.



So, you're suggesting that we shouldn't have a legislature, made up of representatives elected by the people, who vote according to the support of the electorate?



...for which I'm extremely grateful. Slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, are all good examples of changes of popular opinion.



There is: it's called the law, and it is created by the electorate, through representation in Congress.



Not so. It might be acurate to say that SOME of our law has foundations in the 'Judeo/Christian ethic', but not all of it does. Any suggestion that laws that don't correspond to this ethic are somehow wrong is simply an assault on freedom and democracy.



Not al lthe voters agree with you.



Of course it impinges on those who are not religious.... as well as on those whose religious beliefs are not 'Judeo/Christian'.


Mr. Bernstien. you completely misundertand or misrepresent my point. Every argument you make, whether it be voting, or grievences that have been rectrified where clearly right and just as viewd from that very ethic you attempt to dismiss. Our laws, courts and governments are built upon the J/C ethic. To say that the ballot box is a source for moral guiadance is silly in the extreme. In order for a culture to flourish, everyone in it must govern themselves from a set of rules that do not change over time. That is not to say that things never change, far from it. But as change occurs it must be guided and regulated by those unbending rules the culture lives by. It is in this area we have faltered and now suffer. The whole reason we are discussing this invtro question in the first place, is because we not longer hold human life as sacred. Far too many think we are merely more highly evolved "animals" and because of that, there is no reasobn to respect human life more than any other kind. It is this I object too. Human beings are not animals. Animals are not human beings. There are those who will say that many people behave like animals, and that some animals are more hman than people are. While this may be true, it is not a good thing.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 12:26 PM
Is this the natural result of militant feminism in our culture? Men are beyond sidelined. The male is no longer needed. Nah. The vast majority of IVF is for heterosexual couples with difficulty having children by the ordinary method. IVF is complicated and expensive, and if one wants to dispense with the man, donor sperm is vastly easier.

Captain Blight
02-06-2009, 12:37 PM
Tinman, I disagree fairly strenuously with your concept that the moral code of a society must be rigid and unbending. When this country was first formed, and the Constitution written, women were considered to be all but uneducable except in the broadest sense of the world; it was fully legal to own another human, indeed the owned human was only considered 60% of the way there for census purposes; duels were on their way out but considered a way for gentlemen to settle their differences.

So to say we "no longer hold human life as sacred" is hyperbole--and if I've told you once, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. It would be more accurate to say that we're re-defining what makes a human being, and we're re-examining the codification of that definition. It's a normal, healthy thing for a society to do, although this is the first time in history the topic has needed to come up.

Couple that with this being the first time in history individuals or a band of them could declare themselves to be atheist, to openly aver their core belief that there is no god and can be no god, and you have a culture clash without a prior referent. I for one am very irate when I see how laws based on the Church's teachings have persisted to this day.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 12:43 PM
Good signature line, BTW-

We were ninety-one days to Montego Bay
Pumping like madmen all the way . . .

You've heard Garnet's Homemade Beer, I presume?

(Completely off-topic, but why not?)

Kaa
02-06-2009, 12:47 PM
So, as we talked about earlier, it comes down to personal well being (freedoms) versus society's well being.

There's a very important detail here.

Who determines what's good for the society and what's not?

Kaa

Kaa
02-06-2009, 12:48 PM
Interesting question, fancy a stab at answering it?

Reality.

Kaa

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 12:52 PM
Seams knot then.

Captain Blight
02-06-2009, 12:53 PM
Good signature line, BTW-

We were ninety-one days to Montego Bay
Pumping like madmen all the way . . .

You've heard Garnet's Homemade Beer, I presume?

(Completely off-topic, but why not?)It's even funnier when you realize I've been cooking professionally, off-and-on, since about 1992. I take the song as a cautionary tale against being overconfident and underqualified.

Kaa
02-06-2009, 12:53 PM
Well now, this is interesting. Earthlings discussing rights and liberties of having children in the 21 Century. And not considering the future. Look into the time capsule a moment.

It took 120,000 years for Man to reach 1 Billion in population. In 1850 ,the world population stood about 1.5 Billion, then doubled in the next 100 yrs to 3 Billion (1950), doubled again the next 50 yrs, to 6 Billion(2000).Then added 1 Billion in the last 10 years. It's a parabolic rise.

It's not.

Why don't you go educate yourself about global demographics..?

Kaa

Captain Blight
02-06-2009, 12:55 PM
There's a very important detail here.

Who determines what's good for the society and what's not?

KaaThe average person would mull for a second, and then answer "Society at large, of course." That immediately brings up a whole slew of other questions, just as pressing, just as salient; and of course that means the obvious answer may not be the right one.

In the end, it comes back to the concept that ya can't legislate morality.



*Eta* Asymptotic is what I believe Pefjr was thinking of; one a them ever-steepening curve thingies.

Kaa
02-06-2009, 12:55 PM
Another thought re IVF....
Is this the natural result of militant feminism in our culture? Men are beyond sidelined. The male is no longer needed.

I would think it's the natural result of women wanting to have children and being unable to conceive.

Lesbians who want to have kids just pick a sperm donor.

Kaa

Kaa
02-06-2009, 12:56 PM
Seams knot then.

Says who?

Kaa

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 12:57 PM
I do find it interesting that in Canada there is a position that some things aren't done (for the good of the person, or the society, or whatever) but in the US its not even an issue as personal rights and freedoms always trump.I don't think this is accurate. The US is perhaps a bit closer to the libertarian end of the continuum, but not that different from Canada.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 12:58 PM
Says who?

Kaa

If in doubt repeat the question.

Captain Blight
02-06-2009, 01:00 PM
I would think it's the natural result of women wanting to have children and being unable to conceive.

Lesbians who want to have kids just pick a sperm donor.

Kaa
Um. It's unnecessary and unrealistic to conflate militant feminism with lesbianism. The two concepts overlap but aren't in full agreement at all.

Kaa
02-06-2009, 01:01 PM
In the end, it comes back to the concept that ya can't legislate morality.

That too, but my question was more to the point of the distribution of power in a society.

As a very crude oversimplification, since those in power determine what's "good for the society", isn't it interesting how that good usually involves them staying in power..?


*Eta* Asymptotic is what I believe Pefjr was thinking of; one a them ever-steepening curve thingies.

I don't believe he was thinking.

That was pure knee-jerk.

Kaa

Kaa
02-06-2009, 01:02 PM
If in doubt repeat the question.

That rarely helps with the doubt. But you can try, of course.

Kaa

P.S. Why is Popeye posting under PISN's name..? :D

Kaa
02-06-2009, 01:03 PM
Um. It's unnecessary and unrealistic to conflate militant feminism with lesbianism. The two concepts overlap but aren't in full agreement at all.

True, but we were talking about not needing men.

Kaa

Captain Blight
02-06-2009, 01:11 PM
Don't be an asymptote.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 01:11 PM
To clarify: IVF is complicated, expensive, and a lot of trouble. Almost every instance involves a heterosexual couple who's having difficulty getting pregnant in the ordinary way. Women who want to have a child without involving a man almost all use a sperm donor; much simpler. Nonoose speculated about IVF and "militant feminism", but it didn't hold water.

The more I think about it, the more I think Kaa's take on this is probably the right one.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 01:17 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/why-children-born-by-ivf-may-be-more-at-risk-of-autism-and-childhood-cancers-422353.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/1384207/IVF-treatment-triples-cerebral-palsy-risk.html

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 01:22 PM
OK, babies produced by IVF have a somewhat increased risk of certain medical problems. Is that an argument for some course of action ?

Kaa
02-06-2009, 01:23 PM
The more I think about it, the more I think Kaa's take on this is probably the right one.

Ah, so the Jedi mind trick does work :D

Kaa

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 01:26 PM
Ah, so the Jedi mind trick does work :D
Nah, it's just that this time you're making sense. :p

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 01:30 PM
OK, babies produced by IVF have a somewhat increased risk of certain medical problems. Is that an argument for some course of action ?

I have seen a large number of tragedies from these procedures - now when the victims (or at least some of them) wear the major parts of the costs - this might even be justifiable, but where the costs are passed directly to the rest of society then there is a reasonable question as to whether we should continue to fund it.

Kaa
02-06-2009, 01:32 PM
OK, babies produced by IVF have a somewhat increased risk of certain medical problems. Is that an argument for some course of action ?

PISN has been hinting that he'd like to prevent not-perfect-enough humans from breeding, but he wouldn't come out and say so outright. I wonder why :D

Kaa

Captain Blight
02-06-2009, 01:35 PM
ZEE EGGSHPERIMENTZ muszt CONTINUE!!!!

pefjr
02-06-2009, 01:35 PM
It's not.

Why don't you go educate yourself about global demographics..?

Kaa
Global Demographics is a very wide ranging subject only slightly related to my post. Maybe you should do the self-educating .

Facts are facts, and denying them as you and many others are doing is "passing the problem on".

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 01:37 PM
PISN has been hinting that he'd like to prevent not-perfect-enough humans from breeding, but he wouldn't come out and say so outright. I wonder why

Kaa

Kaan't get it right at all.:D

I'm not hinting - I have seen many such interventions - and very few successful ones - here in the UK we (we the taxpayers) pay for this stupidity - and we should stop.

If old animals want to breed - let them try.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 01:37 PM
IVF has a negligible impact on the human population.

Prohibiting a procedure is one thing. Deciding that the British National Health Service won't pay for it is quite another.

Popeye
02-06-2009, 01:39 PM
pisn , you just invited the state into your bedroom

tinham also suggests an outright , 'prohibition' type ban .. ie eugenics

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 01:44 PM
pisn , you just invited the state into your bedroom

tinham also suggests an outright , 'prohibition' type ban .. ie eugenics

How? - I'd suggest the state stays the hell out of any involvement - though mandatory publication of the stats may help.

Popeye
02-06-2009, 01:46 PM
here's how..


Others want it stopped for entirely practical reasons.

you aren't going to find too much private funding for medical research other than state sponsored

to be selective for one group is to be selective for all

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 01:50 PM
I think we have a misunderstanding:

P-I.S.N thinks that IVF is not a good idea for various practical reasons, and is arguing that the NHS shouldn't pay for it. FWIW, I don't know of any private or public insurance in the US that will pay for IVF.

Tinman objects to it for religious reasons, and wants it banned.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 01:52 PM
Others want it stopped....



The "it" in that sentence is IVF - damn little of that goes on in bedrooms.

seafox
02-06-2009, 01:54 PM
Nanoose
when you say that the problem is that now the mass of childern will be a burdan on the american tax payer the problem ( it seems to me or maybe better the solution) get rid of welfare. insteed of limiting peoples freeagency. goverment has gotten so big and so intrusive they have created to some extent every problem in america today. so if you start getting rid of the intrusice stealing parts of goverment the problems will go away ( I will concede other problems may apear but at leeast they are natural problems. fact is I think we should get rid of every law and court dicision passed since say 1892 ( when this would get rid of the second income tax that was ruled unconstutional. it would also get rid of the terrable supream court dicision in 1898 that a judges failure to remind the jury that it was not only their right but their duty to judge botrh the facts of the case AND the law and weather or not it should be applyed.
jeff

Nanoose
02-06-2009, 03:05 PM
Nah. The vast majority of IVF is for heterosexual couples with difficulty having children by the ordinary method. IVF is complicated and expensive, and if one wants to dispense with the man, donor sperm is vastly easier.

Tell that to the woman in California with 14 IVF kids...

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 03:33 PM
As I said, "the vast majority". Yes, there are a few statistical outliers. IVF costs something like $12,000 per cycle in the US these days- with no guarantee of success, obviously, and insurance does not cover it. Multiple tries is the norm. Why anyone would do that if they could just get pregnant the way most folks do is beyond me - although there are always a few people who do things the rest of us think are nuts. My wife and I tried various things, but decided to stop short of IVF and adopted instead. Too much money and hassle, (it was a lot more expensive then) - and I'm not egotistical enough to think my particular combination of genes is all that special.

Kaa
02-06-2009, 03:40 PM
I think we have a misunderstanding:

P-I.S.N thinks that IVF is not a good idea for various practical reasons, and is arguing that the NHS shouldn't pay for it.

Well, let's look at the original, unsanitized quote:


...and think it a pi$s poor idea, trying to produce offspring from an animal unfit to breed

It seems to me that it implies more than just changes to the list of procedures the NHS would pay for...


FWIW, I don't know of any private or public insurance in the US that will pay for IVF.

Some do. In fact, IIRC, in New Jersey it's mandatory to cover IVF (up to four tries, I think).

Kaa

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 03:50 PM
Were they fit to breed they'd have no want of IVF.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 04:01 PM
Some do. In fact, IIRC, in New Jersey it's mandatory to cover IVF (up to four tries, I think).Well, I stand corrected. I was a bit behind the times. 12 states mandate coverage for IVF under at least some circumstances, although in some cases it's very limited.. There are about 50,000 births/year in the US from IVF out of a total of about 4 million (1 in 80, roughly), an average of about 1.4 babies per delivery. FWIW, the reason for using the technique is generally not age, but other infertility problems.

One way or another the women who was in the news recently is a highly unusual case, and isn't at all representative of those who usually have babies that way.

And PI, I'm getting a little irritated at your "fit to breed" language. As I've said, my wife and I weren't able to have kids ourselves. We were in our late 20s - early 30s, completely healthy, and after a bunch of tests, there was no known reason for the infertility. We decided not to try IVF and adopted instead, but it would have been the next step. Are we "not fit to breed"? If your answer is yes, then we have a problem.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 04:40 PM
.... Are we "not fit to breed"? If your answer is yes, then we have a problem.


Fit as in "Fit and able" ?

or Fit as in "a fit person to be a parent"?

Same word - but very different usages.

One of the most important things a person can do is contribute to the raising of the next generation - a huge project with a multi-faceted aspect - one might be a biological parent, a social parent, a teacher or one who supports others in those roles.

As individuals we get no more choice in the matter of biological capacity than we do in hair or eye colour - you get a hand and you have to play it as you see it.
In these days of frequent family break-up there are many adults busy raising kids with whom the may share no biological relationship - and that's no excuse for doing it badly.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 04:56 PM
Let's look at it another way - two intelligent, well-educated, relatively well-off people in a stable happy monogamous relationship, who have since demonstrated themselves to be at least reasonably good parents, but who are unable to get pregnant for no known reason. Who is more "fit to breed" - us, or any semi-literate unemployed mouth-breather who can manage to stick a sperm and an egg together? Sorry PI, that doesn't cut it. (histrionics to emphasize the point) The word "fit" is indeed ambiguous, but it's the one you picked, knowing the ambiguity.

One aspect of "playing the hand you're dealt" involves using the available products of human ingenuity and medical technology to correct medical problems, whether wearing glasses to correct vision, getting a bum knee fixed, or using IVF to overcome infertility. We decided not to go with IVF, but I have no quarrel at all with the vast majority of those who decide differently. Yes there are a few people who use the technology in ways they shouldn't. Abuse does not argue against use.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 05:10 PM
Let's look at it another way - two intelligent, well-educated, relatively well-off people in a stable happy monogamous relationship, who have since demonstrated themselves to be at least reasonably good parents, but who are unable to get pregnant for no known reason. Who is more "fit to breed" - us, or any semi-literate unemployed mouth-breather who can manage to stick a sperm and an egg together? Sorry PI, that doesn't cut it.


Fit as in "Fit and able" - you chosen example of "Semi Literate mouth breather".
Fit as in "Fit to be parents" - I'd back the well educated, well-off stable couple - but I could be wrong.





One aspect of "playing the hand you're dealt" involves using the available products of human ingenuity and medical technology to correct medical problems, whether wearing glasses to correct vision, getting a bum knee fixed, or using IVF to overcome infertility. We decided not to go with IVF, but I have no quarrel at all with the vast majority of those who decide differently. Yes there are a few people who use the technology in ways they shouldn't. Abuse does not argue against use.

No, sadly, the strong arguments against use - are the consequences of the current state of the art - I've seen over a hundred IVF kiddies - and of them scarcely three who, as eight-year-olds, who would pass unremarked in a class of their peers.

You have to hear the careless gallows humour from the professionals to begin to appreciate the full horror. I've heard one lass - with thirty years caring for damaged kids - divide them into three groups; Coat-Hangers, Ironing Boards, and Paperweights.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2009, 05:15 PM
Well, if the rate of significant damage is really 97%, that's a very strong argument. I don't have your experience, having only known three or four, (and not all that well) all of whom were entirely normal as far as I could tell. Do you have any links to studies on the subject?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-06-2009, 05:21 PM
No, the links earlier to press reports of the swedish study are the best I have at the moment - but I'll ask Jenny if she has anything formal.

Tinman
02-07-2009, 03:54 AM
Tinman, I disagree fairly strenuously with your concept that the moral code of a society must be rigid and unbending. When this country was first formed, and the Constitution written, women were considered to be all but uneducable except in the broadest sense of the world; it was fully legal to own another human, indeed the owned human was only considered 60% of the way there for census purposes; duels were on their way out but considered a way for gentlemen to settle their differences.

So to say we "no longer hold human life as sacred" is hyperbole--and if I've told you once, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. It would be more accurate to say that we're re-defining what makes a human being, and we're re-examining the codification of that definition. It's a normal, healthy thing for a society to do, although this is the first time in history the topic has needed to come up.

Couple that with this being the first time in history individuals or a band of them could declare themselves to be atheist, to openly aver their core belief that there is no god and can be no god, and you have a culture clash without a prior referent. I for one am very irate when I see how laws based on the Church's teachings have persisted to this day.

Ok so lets get into this properly. You don't like the idea of an unbending set of fundamental rules for societies to live by. I think it is absolutely imperitive that we have exactly that. What I understand you to be saying, is that the Judeo/Chirstian ethic is simply one belief system among many and that all have equal footing. I will also say at this juncture, it is entirely possible I am blending in here things that you might not have said or inferred and if that is the case, my apologies. But with that said, I would ask you if all is relative, why or how might be a better word, do we decide what is right and wrong in the long run? I think we both agree that to pull a pistiol and shoot someone walking down the street minding their own business and is doing no harm to us or anyone else, is ALWAYS wrong. That is called an absolute truth. It does not change over time. It was wrong yesterday, it is wrong today, and it will be wrong tomorrow. Now you are faced witha problem because relativism says there is no absolute truth, it is all relative. But how can that be given the example illustrated above? Even if you sweep that aside, whois to be the arbiter over what is right or wrong on any given day? Are not my ideas of morality just as valuable, or valuless if you prefer, as anyone elses? So who gets to decide? What we end up with in the case of relativism, is basically a whole lot of wishes. Everyone runs around doing what they wish, and if you object, they respond, who are you to tell me what to do? And under the relative system, they would be right. Many would say that democracy would deal with that and keep us on the straight and and narrow. But history says otherwise. I don't think I need to remind you that it wasn't all that long ago that a democray gave rise to one of the most brutal evil dictators the world has ever seen. Adolph Hitler didn't just step up one day and grab the mic and say "OK boys, I'm running the show". When a nation decends into being a relative culture, it is sowing the seeds of it's own destruction. It was true then, it is true now. it will be true tomorrow.

In a culture that adheres to a set of fundametal rules or code of conduct if you like, it does not automatically follow that those who do not believe in the dogma that underpins it are shunned or outcast. far from it. But what it does mean, is that our laws, courts, and governments all are held to an unchanging unbending standard of accountablility. Or at least they are supposed to be. When you se things like low voter turn out, a disenfranchisement with politicis and governance, it is almost always because the elected officals have drifted off that foundation that all of us [ or most of us at least ] expect them to live up too. Ask yourself this. Why do so many people hate George Bush? Because he lied. Well, who said lying was a bad thing? Where does that notion come from? If everything is relative, why would anyone be angry? It is all relative, right? Of course not. People hate Bush because lying at any level, but espeically at a position of power and responsibility like that is ALWAYS wrong. No matter what the present political wind or public sentiment says. So to bring this around to a conclusion, we simply must have a common standard of laws and rules we all live by that do not change just because one generation or another finds them inconvienient.

Paul Pless
02-07-2009, 10:11 AM
Some things just make me nuts. The rest of the story. (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20257478,00.html)a riot at a psychiatric facility, crazziness!!!:D

Tinman
02-07-2009, 11:01 AM
Norman. To keep this simple ans short, what I am advocating is that the basis for our laws and method of governance [ including your constitution ] is based on the ten commandments. Now religious or not, the things contained in them are what have guided the lawmakers and even voters on this continent since before the founding fo our two countries. There is no need to vote on them, just a need to get our legal system to return to it's base. With those absolutes as the bedrock, everyone knows where they stand and what is and is not acceptable, regardless of any one particular persons religious beilefs or even lack of them. As I said before, the further from that base we move, the worse things get. Kinda like a house that has shifted off it's foundation. One more thing. The example of Nazi germany is a good one despite your protestation to the contrary, because even though there wheren't as many checks and balances, he did still use it to achieve his goals. The safeguards are only effective if they stay in place. Has their not been several attempts within your own country by both parties to repeal the constitutional amandment that limits presidential terms? The effort hasn't been successful yet, but 150 years ago, women couldn't vote and people would have thought you insane to suggest a black man would be president.

Tinman
02-07-2009, 12:21 PM
Norman, if you can't understand the fact that all I am saying we need to get the house back on it's foundation, then there is precious little else that I can say to change your mind. You are simply wrong.

Tinman
02-07-2009, 12:40 PM
Le tme get this straight, it is possible I have misunderstood you. Are you asking me how we would bet back to basics and return to the judeo chirstian ethic?

Bobcat
02-07-2009, 01:00 PM
If the Ten Commandments become the basis of our country's laws, do we punish those who do not worship the JudeoChristian god? Or worship another god? Do we criminalize those who make idols or use the Lord's name in vain? Are those who on the sabbath jailed?

Or you do pick and choose among the commandments as to which are more important

Kaa
02-07-2009, 03:20 PM
Norman. To keep this simple ans short, what I am advocating is that the basis for our laws and method of governance [ including your constitution ] is based on the ten commandments. Now religious or not, the things contained in them are what have guided the lawmakers and even voters on this continent since before the founding fo our two countries. There is no need to vote on them, just a need to get our legal system to return to it's base.

Oh, goody. :D

Have you read the ten commandments recently, Tinman?

Let's take a look.

Number one, presumably the most important one: "I am Lord your God". Religious or not you say? What do we do with people who are neither Christians nor belong to Judaism?

Just in case you were not sure this is REALLY important, there is a clarification: "you shall have no other gods before me" So, I don't see how you can have a Hindu temple in a country which bases its laws on the ten commandments.

Let's continue. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me"

Our Hindu temple is really in trouble now. Buddhist and Shinto shrines as well. And the kids, well, they're just plain screwed.

I mean, how plainly can you put it? You reject the Judeo-Christian God and He, freely admitting to being jealous, will punish you children and grandchildren and grandgrandchildren, etc. Just to remind you, you want to build a legal system on this basis.

But maybe it gets better? Next one: "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name." Oops. Everyone seems to be in LOTS of trouble now. I guess the solution is to criminalize this behavior, right? Use the name of the Lord in vain, and off to jail you go. Purely for the good of your soul, of course.

Next: "Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you."

Well, that's plain as day. We should all keep the Sabbath as Orthodox Jews do. And did I miss something or there is implicit recognition of slavery? Seems God has no problem with slaves, well as long as they keep the Sabbath holy, of course.

Yeah.

There's a word for what you want, Tinman. The word is "theocracy".

Kaa

Tinman
02-07-2009, 11:32 PM
Hey kaa? you missed a few bud. You know, the ones about , lying, stealing, murder, adultery and honouring your father and mother. Just in case you where confused.

Now as far as theocracy is conerned, your suggestion is ludicrous. Most if not all of the signers of the declaration of Independance where very religious men as where the writers of your constitution. And yet this same group went to great lengths to separate church and state. They also guaranteed freedom of religion so that anyone immigrating there regardless of their kind or level of belief, would be free from persecution. But the point that needs to be addressed here, is that it is the very principles that these men believed in, their judeo christian ethic, that they drew upont to write those documents in the first place. And that is what I am talking about. You don't need to vote on it, it already exists. you simply have to go back to using it in your parlimentary and legal systems. the longer you avoid going back to basics, the more screwed up things are going to get.

Nanoose
02-07-2009, 11:52 PM
Relativism does NOT say that black = white.... it says that in the middle somewhere, there are shades of grey that differ by just a bit.

You are portraying 'relativism' as some sort of comic book concept. Relativism does NOT mean 'anything goes'. People opposed George Bush in part because they believe he did lie... but 'relativism' doesn't mean there are NO standards.... it means that we can disagree about what the standards are.

Once again: 'Relativism' does NOT mean 'anything goes'...

Relativism does mean "anything goes" in the sense that there is no agreed upon standard to answer moral questions. X is fine for Norm, but not fine for Deb. That's cool. Y is fine for Deb, but not for Norm, and that's cool. Bush lied? Ya, well, lying is often justified, and it was a small lie, and lying really isn't a big deal, so why get your snuggies in a knot over it. You may say he lied, but maybe for Bush, it was his truth. Maybe he didn't knowingly lie, so how can we call it a lie. What's wrong with lying anyway?

I mean, Dahmer was fine with eating people. You're not, and that's cool, but don't interfere with his freedom. Everyone does their own thing...it's all relative.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-08-2009, 04:35 AM
Nanoose, if that is an attempt at a serious discussion - its a joke.


Tinman made an attempt at describing an "Absolute truth" - and failed dismally in that his "absolute" contained a qualification.

You appear only to be able to use "relative" as a swear word.

Nanoose
02-08-2009, 10:15 AM
You lost me, PISN.

We either live in a culture that says absolute truth exists, or we don't. And currently, NA culture says we don't.

With no absolute, we are left with relativity, right?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-08-2009, 11:04 AM
You lost me, PISN.

We either live in a culture that says absolute truth exists, or we don't. And currently, NA culture says we don't.

With no absolute, we are left with relativity, right?

You have an example of an absolute - tinpot failed - have a go.

Shang
02-08-2009, 11:54 AM
I said that I wasn’t going to express an opinion about this, but heck, why not…?

A common sense consideration of the circumstances suggests that Ms. Suleman is mentally deranged.
The logistics and expense of caring for fourteen children precludes any possibility of employment. Her announcement that she intends to attend college and eventually support the children with her income as a counselor is nonsense--if she actually believes that this is possible, someone should disabuse her. Her “dream of having a huge family” is not sufficient reason to endanger the lives and welfare of the children.
At best it is possible that she is an “entitlement cheat,” and imagines that she can to parlay the kids’ Payments For Dependent Children into an income which might support her and the children, but this is totally unrealistic--the expenses of caring for this family will be staggering.
Ms. Suleman is an authentic nut-case.
That she was supported in this craziness by a fertility clinic brings their ethics into question.


I'm not sure what the Ten Commandments have to do with the discussion, but just to dip an oar in the water, I suggest that the Ten Commandments are a set of Bronze Age religious regulations that have no relevance to the case at hand, nor to contemporary law.

George Jung
02-08-2009, 12:07 PM
I do believe Shang has nailed it. Nice post.

Kaa
02-08-2009, 12:57 PM
Hey kaa? you missed a few bud. You know, the ones about , lying, stealing, murder, adultery and honouring your father and mother. Just in case you where confused.

Yeah, but they're at the bottom of the list. It seems to me they are less important than the ones I mentioned. You don't think so?


Now as far as theocracy is conerned, your suggestion is ludicrous. Most if not all of the signers of the declaration of Independance...

I'm talking about your ideas, not about the founders'.


You don't need to vote on it, it already exists. you simply have to go back to using it in your parlimentary and legal systems. the longer you avoid going back to basics, the more screwed up things are going to get.

So, maybe you want to address some of the questions I asked?

Kaa

Tinman
02-08-2009, 06:13 PM
Nanoose, if that is an attempt at a serious discussion - its a joke.


Tinman made an attempt at describing an "Absolute truth" - and failed dismally in that his "absolute" contained a qualification.

You appear only to be able to use "relative" as a swear word.


Ok I have to ask. What exactly is this "qualification"? For the rest of you, the reason the ten Commandments are relavent today, is because of everything I mentioned about the men who shaped the US and their attitudes about those same commandments. The laws, system of government, and judiciary are all built upon those commandments. To deny it is like saying ya fish swim, but not necessarily in water. This should be an aboslute slam dunk conversation, and yet many persist in trying to rewrite your own history. Like it or not, those bronze age sentences underpin western democray. Agrue till your face falls off, but it dosn't change a thing.

Keith Wilson
02-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Most if not all of the signers of the declaration of Independance were very religious men as were the writers of your constitution.Well - sort of. By the standards of their time, many of them were quite radical, and most of the major figures were very, very far from orthodox. John Adams was a Unitarian. Franklin was a Deist maybe, closer to an agnostic. Jefferson was a Deist, essentially a Unitarian as well. Do you know about his version of the Bible, in which he took the synoptic gospels and systematically removed any reference to the supernatural? It ends with Jesus' death. You can read it here. (http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/)

Democratic governments derive their authority from the people, from the consent of the governed. They are inherently relativistic in that whatever ethical ideas the citizens hold will also apply to the government. They do not depend on any authority or standards except the authority and standards of the citizens

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-09-2009, 04:34 AM
Ok I have to ask. What exactly is this "qualification"? .....


Here is your attempt.


I think we both agree that to pull a pistiol and shoot someone walking down the street minding their own business and is doing no harm to us or anyone else, is ALWAYS wrong. That is called an absolute truth.

See if you can spot where it fails to be "absolute".

Tinman
02-09-2009, 09:09 AM
Here is your attempt.



See if you can spot where it fails to be "absolute".

That is your exception? Are you kidding? You must be, unless you can concieve of a situation where cold blooded murder is not wrong? I'd like to know what conditions need to exist for that to be true.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-09-2009, 09:15 AM
That's the best you can do?
Let's remind you :


I think we both agree that to pull a pistiol and shoot someone walking down the street minding their own business and is doing no harm to us or anyone else, is ALWAYS wrong. That is called an absolute truth.


Who, exactly, makes the call on"doing no harm"?

Qualified absolute?????

Tinman
02-09-2009, 09:20 AM
Don't be ridiculous. Jews have revered the Ten Commandments for a few thousand years before Christ, and if you walk into most any synagogue today, you'll see them written, in Hebrew, on a graphic or carving on the wall. In Hebrew, they are ten lines, each of two words: the specific commandment, i.e., 'Don't murder' (translated and enhanced, in antique prose, as 'thou shalt not murder'). The 'expansion' of the commandments to anything beyond that is an invention of Man, but even if it were not, the commandments don't describe anything even remotely adequate to constitute the laws of the country... you need a bit more than that.



As long as you consider yourself as 'One of Those Who Know The Absolute Truth, and Cannot be Contradicted', your credibility will continue to scrape the bottom of the barrel. There's very little point in debating with you, is there? I mean, after all, of you can't be contradicted, what's the point of talking?

Sorry, but the theocracy you dream of is NOT America, and the rest of us don't want to live in a theocracy. Unlike you, we believe in democracy and freedom.

Norman this is so convaluted and twisted, I almost decided to not bother trying to respond. So I will try, one.... more.... time.

Your mentioning the antiquity of the Commandments and the fact that they are written on synagogue walls has absolutely nothing to do with it. Even when you try to trivialize the the 10 C's, you get it wrong when you say that they can mean nothing more than exactly what they say. Talk about absolutes!

I am not one who considers himself beyond contradiction, that happens all the time. [ Just ask my wife ] It is the Commmandments themselves that contain the truth. You can argue all you want, but cold blooded murder is always wrong as an example.

Last point, and if you don't get this now, you are beyond repair my freind. By using the ancient laws as th foundatiuon of our society, we do not automatically become a theocracy, as much as you insist to the contrary. If you would study your own history, you would discover that in both our countries that is explicitly forbidden. We have this thing called separation of church and state to ensure what you claim would happen, doesn't.

downthecreek
02-09-2009, 09:49 AM
By using the ancient laws as th foundatiuon of our society, we do not automatically become a theocracy

The ancient laws need not belong to a God. Mankind has recognised a few simple rules that are necessary for any kind of ordered society. You would probably find the same basic code enshrined in the laws of other countries in which the culture has been influenced by other religions, including those we might now consider "pagan", or none at all. You don't need a God in order to have a coherent legal system.

Law and morality are not the same thing at all, although they may overlap. Law regulates our public affairs and dealings with each other. Morality is a personal affair. Thus, for example, we can legislate against "bearing false witness" because that impedes the public system of regulation, but it would be nonsensical to legislate against lying in general - pointless and unenforceable. Neither, for example, could we, or should we, legislate against adultery, as they do in some Islamic countries, commandment or no. The behaviour of competent and consenting adults is only a matter for legislation only if it impacts significantly on the conduct of our public affairs or causes significant harm to others who are not competent or do not consent to being involved. Otherwise it is none of our damned business.

The lady with the 14 kids is a moot point. If she and her family can bring up all those children decently, fine. She wouldn't be the first to have a large family (although not all in one go, maybe) But if the children suffer significant harm, or if they become a significant drain on the public purse, then maybe there is cause to wonder. But hard cases do make bad law......

Tinman
02-09-2009, 09:57 AM
While you make an interesting case, the whole point is our culture IS founded on those laws. This is not about what could have been done, but rather, what was done.

Popeye
02-09-2009, 10:06 AM
our culture IS founded on those laws.


..what law founds a culture ? .:confused:

Keith Wilson
02-09-2009, 10:10 AM
I think I'll repeat myself, since it went unremarked last time.

Tinman's argument that his conception of the "Judeo-Christian ethic" must be the basis for law come out very differently depending on on how he wants to achieve that end. If he wants to convince people that this is a good idea, so that they'll then elect people who have similar ideas, then sure, why not? His is one opinion among many, and that's how democracy works. Democracy is, like it or not, relativistic, at least to some degree; the vaues of the citizens generally become the values of the state. OTOH, if he is saying that his idea of the Judeo-Christian ethic (there are other versions, equally Judeo-Christian; see TomF for details) must be the basis for law irrespective of the opinion of the rest of his fellow citizens - well that's another matter altogether. That's exactly the way the Taliban thinks.

And I must point out that the majority of ethical principles (like "don't shoot people at random") are common to every human culture, every religion, and every ethical system. "Don't murder" is no more exclusively "Judeo-Christian" than "take good care of your children", or for that matter, "drink when you're thirsty". Where there is disagreement among religions and cultures it's mostly peripheral stuff - "women should wear veils", "don't eat beef", "don't eat meat on Friday".

downthecreek
02-09-2009, 10:22 AM
While you make an interesting case, the whole point is our culture IS founded on those laws. This is not about what could have been done, but rather, what was done.

Certainly, much of our culture is rooted in Christianity, which is rooted in Judaism. But the basic prohibitions of the commandments are by no means exclusive to that culture, so I'm afraid I don't really understand why this is "the whole point". Unless, of course, you think the whole ten should be enshrined in legislation and not just the ones relating to restraining our behaviour towards each other?

Neither law nor justice can or should be absolute for all time. There are some fundamentals (such as the prohibitions against murder and theft) that can be seen as "bedrock" principles, but must always be room for some flexibility in design and the application of the law. In many other respects, law must change in order to reflect social development. Slavery is a good example. Perhaps if, as suggested above, IVF treatment is shown to produce significantly damaged children in a high proportion of cases, then that may justify a relevant change in the law. In neither case do the commandments offer any real guidance. Indeed, I would suggest that non religious philosophies like Utilitarianism and human ideals such as those that characterised the Enlightenment have offered (and continue to offer) a more fruitful guide to law-making in our developing societies than the Bible does.

Dan McCosh
02-09-2009, 10:23 AM
A question: Should the people creating these test-tube children be responsible
for their upbringing? I'm assuming that they have a legal contract that eliminates this liability--but when was the law passed that established the ground rules?

Also--since induced abortion is usually part of the procedure, what is the position of the pro-life groups?

Keith Wilson
02-09-2009, 10:38 AM
Just for reference, here's the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments, from the King James version of the bible. There are other versions, but this was the most common in the US 250 years ago:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.


2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.Note that only 6, 8, and possibly 9 can be the basis for civil law. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are exclusively religious and have no business in the law of a non-theocratic state - it would be completely unconstitutional in the US. 5 is a good idea, but not a basis for law; 7 and 10 likewise. Two or three out of ten.

Nanoose
02-09-2009, 10:43 AM
I too have been struck by the deafening silence of those who say that human reproduction should always be allowed to take its natural course.

Hey, ACB....clarification, please. Do you mean "natural course" as in we should ban IVF, or "natural course" as in those who refuse to have "extra" fetuses aborted (in IVF)?

Tinman
02-09-2009, 10:44 AM
The basis of my argument here, is to point to a historical reality.

Andrew. While I would ban invitro for reasons already stated, that does not ean to say that science cannot aid couples in teh ability to concieve. To do so would be hypocritical. My wife and I did have some "help" from the medical profession. We had two children and wanted more, but where unable too get pregnant again. So with some help and a little internal cleaning, if I can be forgiven for using such a crude term, the problem was corrected, and 6 more children are the result. So there certainly is a place for medical assistance in the field of human fertility, but invitro is too fraught with dangers to both parents and child, to be utilized.

Tinman
02-09-2009, 10:57 AM
It is my goal in life to be "sensible" I will let history render what judgement it will.

downthecreek
02-09-2009, 11:06 AM
We "ban" smoking because it is not good for you

Just scanning back through this thread to try to understand why you think this

The basis of my argument here, is to point to a historical reality.

is so important to your argument. Could you clarify for me?

For the record, we don't ban smoking because it is not good for you. We ban it in enclosed public spaces (and, I believe, in open spaces as well in some countries) because it is not good for/a big nuisance to, other, non consenting, people - not the smoker.

Dan McCosh
02-09-2009, 11:13 AM
Just for reference, here's the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments, from the King James version of the bible. There are other versions, but this was the most common in the US 250 years ago:Note that only 6, 8, and possibly 9 can be the basis for civil law. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are exclusively religious and have no business in the law of a non-theocratic state - it would be completely unconstitutional in the US. 5 is a good idea, but not a basis for law; 7 and 10 likewise. Two or three out of ten.[/LEFT]

That was a George Carlin routine.

CK 17
02-09-2009, 11:32 AM
Norman. To keep this simple ans short, what I am advocating is that the basis for our laws and method of governance [ including your constitution ] is based on the ten commandments. Now religious or not, the things contained in them are what have guided the lawmakers and even voters on this continent since before the founding fo our two countries. There is no need to vote on them, just a need to get our legal system to return to it's base.

I think the ten commandments are completely useless as a bases for our laws because of what they don't say as opposed to what they say. For example, nothing is made of slavery, equal treatment for women.

As for what they say, they have very limited value. Stealing and murder are obvious. What about adultery? do you want to start throwing people in jail for that?

What about worshiping other god's?

Popeye
02-09-2009, 12:15 PM
It is my goal in life to be "sensible" I will let history render what judgement it will.


george bush was trying to be sensible too

Tinman
02-09-2009, 01:40 PM
There is no point now trying to explain your own history, and that fact that the people who laid the foundation for your democracy used the judeo/christian ethic as it's cornerstone long before any of us where born. If you either don't get it or refuse to accept it, there is precious little I can do to explain it further.

Popeye
02-09-2009, 01:42 PM
pinhead, please stop playing the insecure, whining canadian stereotype, it is really embarrassing

Kaa
02-09-2009, 01:59 PM
...the people who laid the foundation for your democracy used the judeo/christian ethic as it's cornerstone long before any of us where born.

The people who laid the foundation for democracy are Ancient Greeks. I am pretty sure they didn't use the judeo/christian ethic as a cornerstone :D

Kaa

Popeye
02-09-2009, 02:01 PM
tin tin tin


keep 'em coming .. :D:D:D

Tinman
02-09-2009, 02:05 PM
Norman, even if I gave you an answer to the obvious, it wouldn't be good enough. No matter what my reply might be, it would be unsatisfactory in your eyes. All you have to do is read your own history, look at how the governing was done then and through most of our history, compared to how it is done now. I would like to think most people are bright enough to get it. Please don't make me make an exception in your case.

Keith Wilson
02-09-2009, 02:13 PM
There is no point now trying to explain your own history, and that fact that the people who laid the foundation for your democracy used the judeo/christian ethic as it's cornerstone long before any of us where born. If you either don't get it or refuse to accept it, there is precious little I can do to explain it further.Several points:

- Much of what you call "the Judeo-Christian Ethic" is the common ethic of most of humanity and almost every religion. Something like it is necessary for people to survive and prosper and live together in functional communities. Is there any essential principle of our culture or our government which is exclusive to Judaism or Christianity?

- The founders of the US very deliberately founded a secular state. They were very familiar with the horribly destructive European wars of religion. The Thirty Years War was more recent for them than the US Civil war is for us, and some of the New England colonies we established essentially as theocracies. They very deliberately wanted to make the government non-religious. Religion is mentioned in the Constitution only twice, in the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restricting the free exercise thereof."), and once to say that there shall be no religious test for holding public office (something which existed in every European country at the time AFAIK). God or Christianity is never mentioned once. This would be a very odd thing to do if they were establishing a county on religious principles. How do you explain this?

Popeye
02-09-2009, 02:18 PM
something about knowing judo ..

Sam F
02-09-2009, 02:39 PM
You're dodging and weaving like a professional boxer.

Still can't come up with an answer, huh? The reason is obvious: you don't HAVE an answer... at least not an answer which wouldn't imply some theocratic dictatorship...

"theocratic dictatorship"? Can you say "stereotype"? Lordy son! Next thing'll be that us Southerners ain't got noting better to do that whip our downtrodden black folk! Why gracious honey!

What do they say here? "Thick as a brick", IIRC.

Yeah, no doubt about it the US (the Anglosphere and Europe) are civilizations that have nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian morals.
Nothing that is, provided that you're completely blind and tone deaf.

England of course had, and still has, an Established Christian Church - so that takes care of Canada...
For the US, with the Creator explicitly placed at the foundation of human rights in the US Declaration of Independence and no less a person citing that document than President Lincoln* as the reason slavery was illegal, there's not much excuse for misunderstanding - unless it's deliberate.

Here - take a listen to that well known Christian broadcaster NPR and their last Saturday's feature on A Lincoln and tell me we weren't a Christian founded nation:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100377337


*admittedly a known theocrat. ;)

Sam F
02-09-2009, 02:57 PM
...Time for me to leave.

If you were certain of your ground, no such thing would ever be contemplated. But perhaps it is evidence of a certain learning process that either has been, or is nearly completed. That's not a bad thing, Norman. ;)

Keith Wilson
02-09-2009, 03:13 PM
It's been a pleasant discussion so far, but that's about to change, alas. Time for me to leave as well.

Sam F
02-09-2009, 03:41 PM
Such harsh words!
And so aggrieved too!


Quite to the contrary, SamF. I've spent enough posts going back and forth with you, to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I don't care to do so, ever again.

Again, that's shows a lessoned learned. That's a good thing!
I applaud your accomplishment.
Of one thing we may both be "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN"... you don't like to eat your own words. The "don't like" part you've learned well. Call it a successful example of trauma therapy. But how about the... don't be a nasty-tongued hypocrite in the first place part? I'm afraid that's another lesson; one that remains to be learned.


It's been a pleasant discussion so far, but that's about to change, alas. Time for me to leave as well.

Piling on? A "Me Too!"?
Don't worry boys, I don't have time to fool with you today, so...
carry on. Demonstrate your superiority over those of us lacking your advanced social, intellectual and political development. :D

oznabrag
02-09-2009, 03:53 PM
Jeez, Sam, I thought you had gone away to do a little soul-searching and self-examination, but it looks like you're still the same, old narcissist.

Sad, really.

John T

bob winter
02-09-2009, 03:54 PM
Talk about thread drift!

Sam F
02-09-2009, 04:07 PM
Jeez, Sam, I thought you had gone away to do a little soul-searching and self-examination...

"soul searching"? Well... I did do some soul searching of a sort. I pondered what it means to torment people with their own words. Or alternatively, to let people demonstrate their own bigotry by quoting an approved hero and having people tell me how awful/ignorant/pompous I am for saying it. Is it wrong? Maybe so, but darned if I can see how. How does anyone take the blame for another's hypocrisy anyway? I know it's not nice to rebuke error, but since when is "nice" the penultimate good?
However, it may be said that I just might have discovered a guilt-free way to administer trauma therapy. ;)


...but it looks like you're still the same, old narcissist.

Sad, really.

John T

Distance psychoanalysis is generally speaking, simply psycho. ;)
What your insult appears to distill down to is rather poignant though... But sorry, I'm not a Liberal any more... I'm all better now. :D

Tinman
02-09-2009, 04:10 PM
When your talking to walls lik Norman, you might as well pee on a house fire for all the good it does. Time for me to bow out too. Not because of Sam, but because ther ain't no use beating my head against a wall. Even a wall called Norman. .. sigh...

Sam F
02-09-2009, 04:10 PM
Tootles!

Keith Wilson
02-09-2009, 04:24 PM
Tinman, you probably won't change people's minds (I doubt I ever have), but the discussion can sometimes be interesting if it stays civil. I'd be interested in your response to my questions in #209.

I won't discuss things with Sam anymore; been there. done that for way too many pages. He's certainly no fool, and has some interesting ideas, but the attitude exemplified in #212, 217, and 220 makes it simply not worth the trouble.

downthecreek
02-09-2009, 04:50 PM
There is no point now trying to explain your own history, and that fact that the people who laid the foundation for your democracy used the judeo/christian ethic as it's cornerstone long before any of us where born.

These assertions always remind me of an incident long ago that always stuck in my mind.

I was in Thailand at a time when a hijacked plane was sitting on the runway at Bangkok airport. Watching an English language news report on the TV in my hotel room, I was struck by one comment. The Prime Minister had stated that the top priority, the one that trumped all other considerations, was the safety of the hostages and the well-being of their families. His words - "in a Buddhist country such as ours, compassion for innocent life must be our guiding principle......" (or words to that effect)

In a Buddhist country such as ours..... Their principles, held no less firmly than ours, rooted no less firmly in their religion and assumed, no less than ours, to have some moral worth that set it apart from other societies.

Sam F
02-09-2009, 05:25 PM
Tinman, you probably won't change people's minds (I doubt I ever have), but the discussion can sometimes be interesting if it stays civil...

Don't sell yourself so short Keith. You (and others here) have had a significant impact on my thinking and have certainly changed my mind.


I won't discuss things with Sam anymore; been there. done that for way too many pages. He's certainly no fool, and has some interesting ideas, but the attitude exemplified in #212, 217, and 219 makes it simply not worth the trouble.

Oh? You mean like suggesting the Norman is "thick as a brick" in 212? You do know that I'm quoting somebody else don't you? I don't recall your objection when that was said to me. :D
By the way, that's one of those things you taught me. Be proud Keith.
And here's another:
217 and 220 are just responses to things people said to me. Of course, not to notice the hypocrisy or anything,... I'm naturally not allowed to defend myself, am I? Of course not! :D:D
Yeah Keith, you changed my mind on lots of things. If you don't like the results, whatever you do, under absolutely no circumstances, must you do any soul searching.

oznabrag
02-09-2009, 05:36 PM
What happened to "Tootles"?

Keith Wilson
02-09-2009, 05:39 PM
Sam hates being ignored.

oznabrag
02-09-2009, 05:40 PM
Point taken.

Tinman
02-09-2009, 07:03 PM
Keith. No problem I will give you an answer. And you are of course right. I doubt I will change many minds but here goes.

"...- Much of what you call "the Judeo-Christian Ethic" is the common ethic of most of humanity and almost every religion. Something like it is necessary for people to survive and prosper and live together in functional communities. Is there any essential principle of our culture or our government which is exclusive to Judaism or Christianity?.."

It took me a while to answer this one. And I must confess, since my whole life experience has been from the Catholic perspective, with only a passing knowledge of the other major world faiths, I must answer that I do not have enough information to be able to field an adequate response. More bluntly and to the point, I just don't know.

"...- The founders of the US very deliberately founded a secular state. They were very familiar with the horribly destructive European wars of religion. The Thirty Years War was more recent for them than the US Civil war is for us, and some of the New England colonies we established essentially as theocracies. They very deliberately wanted to make the government non-religious. Religion is mentioned in the Constitution only twice, in the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor restricting the free exercise thereof."), and once to say that there shall be no religious test for holding public office (something which existed in every European country at the time AFAIK). God or Christianity is never mentioned once. This would be a very odd thing to do if they were establishing a county on religious principles. How do you explain this?..."

Very good question, but not nearly as difficult as the first one. I agree that the founders of US did in fact want a secular government, although I think it had more to do with the establishment of the church of England and the havoc that it caused that they where attempting to avoid, but the fact remains that they very clearly wanted to make sure no one could set up the church of the United states of America, and then compell everyone by writ of law, or force of arms to belong to it as King Herny the 8th had done. Having a "test" of religious belief would have flown in the face of the religious freedom that had been incorporated in the charter of rights, and would have been virtually meaningless anyway. I do think that while "God" or Christianity is not mentioned, it does not mean that the government wanted nothing to do with religion. Do you not have "In God We Trust" on yoru currancy? Your legislative assemblies open with a prayer. A funny tradition in a country that has no room for faith within the halls of government. Your pledge of alleigence contains the phrase "One nation under God". Until recently the Ten commandments hung in courthouses all over the country, and your president takes his vow with his hand on the Bible.

So what is apparant, is while the founders did not want the Church dictating to it about how to run the country, nor did they want freemen compelled to belong to a state run church, they felt that religion did play a very important role in forming the character of the men who would go on to lead the country in every field of endeavour, not just politics.

It may not be a satisfactory answer, but it is how I understand the "J/C ethic" and the role it played in our culture. Both in the US and in Canada.

Tinman
02-09-2009, 07:31 PM
Like I told you Norman, no matter what I answer, you find fault. So I'm only going to trouble myself with one comment you made and I am still not sure why I am bothering with even that much.

You said:

"..You're implying that there's a religious test for political leaders.... which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.."

I said:

"..Having a "test" of religious belief would have flown in the face of the religious freedom that had been incorporated in the charter of rights, and would have been virtually meaningless anyway..."

Tinman
02-09-2009, 07:40 PM
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892.

IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

That took almost exactly 2 minutes to find.

Dan McCosh
02-09-2009, 07:48 PM
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892.

IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

That took almost exactly 2 minutes to find.


I do remember reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in elementary school without the "under God" part. It was "one nation, indivisible, with liberty....etc.

The "under God" part was added in 1954.

oznabrag
02-09-2009, 09:19 PM
According to Wikipedia, the phrase "In God We Trust" first appeared on US coinage toward the very end of the Civil War. 1864, to be precise.

Also from Wikipedia:

"The motto E Pluribus Unum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Pluribus_Unum) ("from many, one") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States) in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency), and was widely considered the national motto de facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#cite_note-1) However, by 1956 it had not been established so by legislation as the official "national motto". The Congressional Record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Record) of 1956 reads: "At the present time the United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most appropriate that 'In (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In) God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) we (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We) trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust)' be so designated as U.S. national motto."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#cite_note-CR1956p13917-0)


I think this is pretty interesting stuff. One might notice that the 'in God we trust' idea was introduced in the final throes of the 'From Many, Two' crisis and was pushed along with increasingly rabid fervor until the height of the McCarthy era, when the religionists managed to get God a place as our National Mascot. They got him into the Pledge of Allegiance as well!

Don't get me wrong. I believe that god is.

I also believe that, while it may show a pretty face and help little old ladies across the street, religion has been the source of many, many unspeakable evils in the name of God. Just go to the bank on High Street in Baldwin City, Kansas and look upon the mural of John Brown with his bloody knife and his Bible.

Tinman, I believe I may have been rude to you on some occasion, but I admire your willingness to tackle this thorny question, and I hope we can discuss it further.

I agree with you that there is trouble here in paradise, but I disagree that it can be fixed by a 'return' to Judeo-Christian values.

The very term is misleading in that the Muslims worship the same God. Judeo-Christo-Islamic values? As has been pointed out, they are Buddhist, Hindu and Wiccan values as well.

I believe that, ever since the Republican Party won the Civil War, a theocratic plutocracy/military-industrial complex has been growing within this Nation. From the standpoint of metaphysics, it could be seen as a reaction to the radical notions set forth in our First Amendment. The government is the legal identity of a Nation. Separation of Church and State means separation of Church and Law. This has the same basis as the philosophy of the 'Rule of Law, not of Men' because men are corruptible. Men also invent religion.

It is very difficult to separate the myths from the realities because this blurring of the Framers' intent has been perpetrated incrementally over the past 150 years. I only found out tonight, as a result of this conversation, that my National Motto is 'In God We Trust' and, quite frankly, I find this more than a little disturbing. I think there is a huge difference between 'religion' and 'faith'.

I believe that what we need is a return to a progressive income tax, more than anything else. Besides that, universal health care is an absolute must. It's the Christian thing to do!

John T

Keith Wilson
02-09-2009, 09:28 PM
. . they felt that religion did play a very important role in forming the character of the men who would go on to lead the country in every field of endeavour, not just politicsI agree. Many of them did. Many, although not all, were very far from orthodox Protestants (few were Catholic), but this is generally true. Norm, I don't think this implies any sort of religious test for public office.

FWIW, I expect that the distaste for state religion came as much from the founders' knowledge of Catholic Europe as the British experience (or more), but there's certainly plenty of blame to go around.

I find it interesting that among western countries, at least, religion is considerably more important and stronger today in the US where it is specifically excluded from government, than in Europe where it has been state-supported.

Tinman
02-09-2009, 09:35 PM
Interesting post Kieth. I will confess I think it interesting too about the US/Europe comparison. So let me return the favour and ask a question of my own. Do you think that this has anything to do with the wide difference in conditions economically/socially/politically in Europe vs the US?

Tinman
02-09-2009, 09:38 PM
I believe that what we need is a return to a progressive income tax, more than anything else. Besides that, universal health care is an absolute must. It's the Christian thing to do!

As someone who lives with socialized medicine, I can only say that the problems with it are just as large as the benefits.

Keith Wilson
02-09-2009, 09:40 PM
Do you think that this has anything to do with the wide difference in conditions economically/socially/politically in Europe vs the US?What specifically? It's hard to separate effect from cause. Perhaps some of our friends from across the Atlantic will put in their £.02 or €.02. I won't be able to get to it tonight , but I'll give it some thought.

And I congratulate everybody for a reasonably amicable discussion. Good work.

Tinman
02-09-2009, 10:45 PM
"...I believe that what we need is a return to a progressive income tax, more than anything else..."

How did I miss that gem? you really are kidding, right? I mean you gotta be. No one in thier right mind would support punishing those who are successful. I mean I know there are some looney things said in here, and even once in a while by me, but oh please tell me you are just pulling my chain. You don't help the poor by beggaring the rich. Unless you got a portait of Karl Marx on your wall with "My Hero!" stencilled in big bold letters underneath it.

Tinman
02-09-2009, 10:46 PM
What specifically? It's hard to separate effect from cause. Perhaps some of our friends from across the Atlantic will put in their £.02 or €.02. I won't be able to get to it tonight , but I'll give it some thought.

And I congratulate everybody for a reasonably amicable discussion. Good work.

I was referring to standard of living, political turmoil etc., etc.,

oznabrag
02-09-2009, 10:50 PM
"...I believe that what we need is a return to a progressive income tax, more than anything else..."

How did I miss that gem? you really are kidding, right? I mean you gotta be. No one in thier right mind would support punishing those who are successful. I mean I know there are some looney things said in here, and even once in a while by me, but oh please tell me you are just pulling my chain. You don't help the poor by beggaring the rich. Unless you got a portait of Karl Marx on your wall with "My Hero!" stencilled in big bold letters underneath it.


So much for 'reasonably amicable discussion'.

Captain Blight
02-10-2009, 02:19 AM
Oh? You mean like suggesting the Norman is "thick as a brick" in 212? You do know that I'm quoting somebody else don't you? You know, that really doesn't matter. you're still typing the words to convey meaning. Claiming it's "a quote" is a cutesy, trolly, juvenile schtick that I don't let my 8-year-old nephew get away with.
I don't recall your objection when that was said to me. :D
By the way, that's one of those things you taught me. Be proud Keith.Sam, you are just a tremendous douchebag.

And here's another:
217 and 220 are just responses to things people said to me. Of course, not to notice the hypocrisy or anything,... I'm naturally not allowed to defend myself, am I? Of course not! :D:D
Yeah Keith, you changed my mind on lots of things. If you don't like the results, whatever you do, under absolutely no circumstances, must you do any soul searching.


You whine more or less constantly, diverting a perfectly reasonable discussion into a polemic about you were hard done by and anyone who claims otherwise is a hypocrite. I say that's the wrong point of view: You're being hard done by because you are a lying, irresponsible, dogmatic stubborn well-used enema nozzle of a human being, and you deserve every bit of vitriol that comes your way. I've been told you didn't used to be like this; how the hell do you manage to devolve as you age?


Sam, I understand how you can cart those beams through the city streets, erect them on the hill; I can imagine how you climb up on there, and I get how you can nail both feet and get one hand spiked down; but how do you get that last nail driven home?

If you're going to defend you point of view, by all means do so. Please begin by clearly defining you point of view in words plainly adapted to the meanest understanding. Keep it on track and quit ducking down conversational black holes looking for a place to hide, and you'll get much better results.

downthecreek
02-10-2009, 03:17 AM
As someone who lives with socialized medicine, I can only say that the problems with it are just as large as the benefits.

I think it is a pity that the term "socialized medicine" is used as such a catch-all (and convenient bogeyman for some) for any system that is designed to provide universal health care. There are many different ways to do this and huge variations in the experience of health care they provide.

The Canadian system, as I understand it, is by no means typical of all such systems.

downthecreek
02-10-2009, 03:47 AM
I was referring to standard of living, political turmoil etc., etc.,

I would be interested to see some specifics here. Europe is not a homogeneous entity. Which countries do you have in mind?

Popeye
02-10-2009, 07:40 AM
No one in thier right mind would support punishing those who are successful. .. You don't help the poor by beggaring the rich. Unless you got a portait of Karl Marx on your wall with "My Hero!" stencilled in big bold letters underneath it.

karl marx (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090207.MACGREGOR07/TPStory/TPComment/?page=rss&id=GAM.20090207.MACGREGOR07) it is ..

Tinman
02-10-2009, 08:51 AM
So much for 'reasonably amicable discussion'.

There is nothing "reasonable" about a progressive tax.

Popeye
02-10-2009, 08:55 AM
No one in thier right mind would support punishing those who are successful. .. You don't help the poor by beggaring the rich. Unless you got a portait of Karl Marx on your wall with "My Hero!" stencilled in big bold letters underneath it.

is what you said .. :rolleyes:

Tinman
02-10-2009, 08:55 AM
I would be interested to see some specifics here. Europe is not a homogeneous entity. Which countries do you have in mind?

The two countries I have in mind, are France, and England. Although you can throw Holland into the mix when you factor in Geert Wilders.

Sam F
02-10-2009, 09:07 AM
...FWIW, I expect that the distaste for state religion came as much from the founders' knowledge of Catholic Europe as the British experience (or more), but there's certainly plenty of blame to go around...

From what church's persecution did the Pilgrim's flee to found their city on a hill in America?

Sam F
02-10-2009, 09:22 AM
One might also reflect that the dollar bill has yet another phrase on it: "Novus ordo seculorum" , meaning '"a new secular order".

How does THAT fit with "In God we Trust"?

Another miss. Norman, you were wrong in claiming that Christians advocate a theocratic dictatorship - I've never met such a person. There's no way that's a mainstream or even a tributary view
And you're completely missing the significance of Novus ordo seculorum. For starters, the two priests assigned to my Church are both secular priests.
Does that hint at anything?
But there's a deeper meaning to that quote and you don't know that either:
Novus ordo seculorum means "A new order of the ages" and it's a paraphrase from Virgil's* Eclogue a work that from the Middle Ages was generally considered to be a prophecy of the coming of Christ.


Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis aetas;
magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo.
iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna,
iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto.

Translated...
Now comes the final era of the Sibyl's song;
the great order of the ages is born afresh.
And now justice returns, honored rules return;
now a new lineage is sent down from high heaven.

The motto was proposed by Charles Thomson a Latin scholar who co-designed the Great Seal. Mr. Thomson surely knew what he was about in proposing that quote.




*Why do you think Virgil was Dante's guide in Hell?

Tinman
02-10-2009, 09:24 AM
I think it is a pity that the term "socialized medicine" is used as such a catch-all (and convenient bogeyman for some) for any system that is designed to provide universal health care. There are many different ways to do this and huge variations in the experience of health care they provide.

The Canadian system, as I understand it, is by no means typical of all such systems.

To be honest, there are a wide variety of models used by a number of countries to deliver health care. The only one I can speak of though, is the Canadian model. Ours is not exactly an example of governmental efficiency and there are also those who travel abroad to acess services at thier own expense that cannot be had here. There are even a greater number who would if they where able. The debate in this country is never ending and multi faceted but there seems ot be a rising chorus of voices for more privatization. There are now people who are supporting the idea of specialized clinics dealing with things like hip and knee replacements and the like to lighten the burden on hospital O.R.'s. Another very large and growing situation is hospital beds being taken up by the eldery that should be in long term care facilities, but there are either no places to send them too, or no beds in the few remaining. The real problem with Canadian health care, is that it creates shortages in some areas, Doctors, specialized equipment and technicians and so on, and at the same time creating surpluses in areas like administration and unskilled staff. Innovative thinking has long been relegated to the dust bin by beurocrats [sp] who keep their jobs by defending the staus qou. This is also true in almost every other government department and causes me to be deeply worried about the future of my country.

Popeye
02-10-2009, 09:25 AM
tinyman has a sort of militant nongovernmental theocratic ultraconservative universal royal democratic white guy health care model he's working on

bob winter
02-10-2009, 09:25 AM
Popeye, what does Danny Williams have to do with Karl Marx?

downthecreek
02-10-2009, 09:26 AM
The two countries I have in mind, are France, and England. Although you can throw Holland into the mix when you factor in Geert Wilders.

You surprise me. Political turmoil? In Britain? In the Netherlands? In France? (demonstrations, certainly, but political turmoil - I don't think so) Low standard of living?

Let's take France and the Netherlands. Both rigidly secular states and, in my opinion, both having rather healthier societies than the USA, by most commonly accepted measures. If you measure "standard of living" purely by money (which I don't) then many in the US probably have more of it than some in these countries. Of However, if you think in terms of quality of life for the largest proportion of the population(which I do) then I would take France or the Netherlands.

I have never been to Canada, so cannot comment. Certainly, I believe Canada has less dramatic social inequality and greater social mobility than the USA and these are qualities I applaud. But I suspect you and I are applying very different observations and values to this question.

Matter of interest, how much time have you spent in the countries you mention?

oznabrag
02-10-2009, 09:29 AM
There is nothing "reasonable" about a progressive tax.

During the 1950's, we enjoyed what is quite possibly the greatest era of prosperity we have ever known. You seem to wish for a return to that simpler, more prosperous, more 'morally-upright' time.

The tax rate on the highest earners was right at 90%. This meant that the person who earned $1,000,000 per year took home about $100,000, which was still over 10 times the take-home of the average worker.

Just exactly how great a disparity between haves and have-nots do you want? Can there ever be enough money, enough difference, to satisfy greed? You seem to believe that money will insulate you from the growing rage of those that these policies have cheated out of their 'pursuit of happiness'.

You seem to expect the working poor, a class that has grown exponentially since the 50's ( a class that is now metamorphosing into the 'unemployed'), you expect the working poor to labor to make others wealthy and, also, to pay for the infrastructure and civil services that make this wealth a possibility.

Right now, I have to go and put my shoulder to the wheel of commerce for a while, but I'll be back later to excoriate you properly.

I fully expect you to sing and dance like a blinkered idiot during my absence.

John T

Popeye
02-10-2009, 09:29 AM
what does Danny Williams have to do with Karl Marx?

nothing

Popeye
02-10-2009, 09:30 AM
This is also true in almost every other government department and causes me to be deeply worried about the future of my country.

then change it

downthecreek
02-10-2009, 09:32 AM
To be honest, there are a wide variety of models used by a number of countries to deliver health care.

I don't think the "perfect" system exists, but, as you say, there are many different ways to manage health care, some of which are much more efficient than others. Most, I think, have distinctive strengths and weaknesses. So maybe we need to avoid too much generalisation when talking about "socialized medicine".

Oh, and if you want to delve into the world of the shock..horror...worst case polemics (see below) I might be able to recommend a few prejudice feeders for your reading list as well :)

BTW, I have quite a lot of experience of working in NHS hospitals - both inner city and provincial, so reckon to know something about the topic.

Sam F
02-10-2009, 09:36 AM
To be honest, there are a wide variety of models used by a number of countries to deliver health care. The only one I can speak of though, is the Canadian model...

For a perspective on on the English version, you may want to read Life at the Bottom by Theodore Dalrymple (a pen name). He was a physician in that system and has some very cogent things to say about it's effects.

Popeye
02-10-2009, 09:40 AM
nick , answer to this ..


You apparently believe that the poor and middle class presently don't pay enough tax.... and that the very wealthy should pay vastly lower taxes.


which rules and limits do you wish to go beyond ?

Sam F
02-10-2009, 09:40 AM
...Right now, I have to go and put my shoulder to the wheel of commerce for a while, but I'll be back later to excoriate you properly.

I fully expect you to sing and dance like a blinkered idiot during my absence.

John T

Oh my! Where are the regiments of "Nice" when they're needed?
Oh just kidding! We all know, ;) they demand niceness and "civility" in one direction only. :D

Tinman
02-10-2009, 09:43 AM
Well, here's something juicy enough to bite into.

Tinman, you say you don't think that a progressive tax is 'reasonable'. Fair enough.

Therefore, if we were to transition to a flat tax, AND we needed to raise the same total revenues as we presently generate from taxes, then one thing MUST be true:

You apparently believe that the poor and middle class presently don't pay enough tax.... and that the very wealthy should pay vastly lower taxes.

Is that indeed what you believe?

I would weep with joy if we ever instituted a flat tax, but fear not, government is far to addicted to our money for that to ever happen. I can not understand anyone who thinks the Federalis can manage their money better than they can when you consider even just a short list of recent financial disasters and boondoggles. The Gun Registry is but one example, the cancelling of a helicopter contract witha penalty of half a billion, another. I haven't even mentined teh recent high profile adscam mudpit. The following qoute actually sums up things up far more effrectively than I ever could.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

---The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

Sam F
02-10-2009, 09:47 AM
Kinda odd. I'm really bad at math, but I thought that... say... 10% of $100 was less money than 10% of 1,000,000. Am I missing something?

Popeye
02-10-2009, 09:48 AM
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

um .. and precisely were did the wealthy come across their money in the first place

? :rolleyes::rolleyes::confused::rolleyes:

Sam F
02-10-2009, 09:50 AM
You didn't answer the question. If we instituted a flat tax, and needed to raise the same revenue that we currently do, then it is absolutely true that the poor and middle class would have to pay significantly more, and the very wealthy would pay significantly less.

Since you said you would 'weep for joy' if a flat tax were instituted, then it MUST mean that you agree with what I just wrote.

Is it true? Answer the question!

Norman. As it is, the tax system is so byzantine that rich people often end up paying no tax at all. Remember Ms. Helmsley? "Only little people pay taxes".
While it's not technically true, she said that for a very good reason.
A true flat tax may well end up in rich people maying more taxes - there being no alternative. Besides I know of no flat tax advocate that doesn't propose a low income floor beneath which one pays no tax at all.
So get real Norman. Quit stereotyping please.

Sam F
02-10-2009, 09:52 AM
Of course it wouldn't be fair not to mention the simply awful fall-out that would result from a flat tax: It would put thousands and thousands of accountants, tax lawyers, tax preparers, an other such non-productive members of society out of work. Oh the humanity!

Tinman
02-10-2009, 09:52 AM
Ok, I will. nder a flat tax, [ as I would implement it ] there would be a base line underwich no one would pay taxes. 35,000 a year sounds like a nice place to start. So the first 35,000 are totally tax free. after that the rate wold be 20%. I tis an arbitrary number, but since it is my model, I get to set it. So if someone earns 35,001.00, his total federal tax bill would be 20 cents. This way those who are least able to afford paying taxes would be exempt, and as a persons prosperity grows, so does his tax bill. Not the most fair way to do it, but it is alot more fair than what we have now. Ok go ahead and carve it up.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-10-2009, 09:55 AM
You realise that you are proposing a progressive tax scheme?

Tinman
02-10-2009, 09:55 AM
Of course it wouldn't be fair not to mention the simply awful fall-out that would result from a flat tax: It would put thousands and thousands of accountants, tax lawyers, tax preparers, an other such non-productive members of society out of work. Oh the humanity!

Actually Sam, most accountants I have talked to hate doing taxes. It is far to time intensive for the return they get. One of the senior partners in the lead accoounting firms here in Ottawa told me he would gladly support a flat tax. It would leave him free to work on more lucrative contracts.

Tinman
02-10-2009, 09:58 AM
You realise that you are proposing a progressive tax scheme?

Yes, but to do it any other way would simply not fly and would not be politically possible. The most fair way of paying taxes, would be for everyone to pay the same amount regardless of what income bracket they are in. Getting that done would be about as likely as teaching pigs to sing.

Sam F
02-10-2009, 09:59 AM
Actually Sam, most accountants I have talked to hate doing taxes. It is far to time intensive for the return they get. One of the senior partners in the lead accoounting firms here in Ottawa told me he would gladly support a flat tax. It would leave him free to work on more lucrative contracts.

I'm not surprised at all. Accountants do provide a value add in much of what they do. Though there are those who specialize in the tax end of the business. But there are bottom feeders in most professions. ;)

Tinman
02-10-2009, 10:00 AM
OK, fine. You're advocating what all 'flat tax' supporters advocate: it's not a flat tax at all, but a tax which is nonlinearly progressive at a very low level, and decidedly regressive at a very high level.

The net result is still the same, though: middle class earners would have to see a dramatic increase in thier taxes, and the very wealthy would see a dramatic decrease in thier taxes, in order to raise the same revenue.

So, apparently, you DO believe that the middle class doesn't pay nearly enough... and the wealthy pay far too much.

OK, that's fine, if that's what you believe.

Typical Norman. Sad, but typical. Why not offer your idea and see if it passes muster, rahter than just shoot holes in everybody elses?

Sam F
02-10-2009, 10:02 AM
Yes, but to do it any other way would simply not fly and would not be politically possible. The most fair way of paying taxes, would be for everyone to pay the same amount regardless of what income bracket they are in. Getting that done would be about as likely as teaching pigs to sing.

Beyond that, it's simply not cost-effective to aggressively collect taxes from the poor. If they cheat, whatcha gonna get for all the trouble of an audit and prosecution? $500.00?
It's not worth it.

bob winter
02-10-2009, 10:02 AM
As an accountant, I hate preparing personal tax returns but it can't be avoided. Bringing in a flat tax, on its own, would not solve the problem. Tax rate is one thing but the real work involves determining taxable income and a flat tax will not solve that problem unless massive changes are made to simplify the tax legislation.

Sam F
02-10-2009, 10:05 AM
I'm reminded of a certain Mr Pine I used to know. He's a small businessman and as fine a Liberal as you could ask for. Voted straight Democratic. Loudly proclaimed to anyone within range that this or that social program should be funded to the max.
But he expressed to me once that his goal for the year was to pay no taxes. Last I heard, he regularly made that goal too. Sound familiar? :D