Is Abortion a Violation of the 5th or the 6th Commandment?
Recently at Vox Nova there has been a bit of a spat about how abortion relates to the 5th and 6th commandments (in the Catholic reckoning), i.e. the prohibitions against killing and against adultery, respectively. I write this post in the spirit of calling out one’s allies. I am an ally of Matt Bowman who insists that abortion is the primary social justice issue of our time, and I am an ally of Morning’s Minion who believes that abortion will never be abolished as long as it is treated separately from the rest of the life issues, broadly conceived.
Now, to be fair, MM’s post was not about this question specifically and debates in comboxes may not be the best places to gather someone’s systematic thoughts on the matter, so it is entirely likely that both MM and Matt Bowman will find much they agree with in my post. At least, I hope they will. My manner of calling out is not meant to be a strident one. I seek common ground, not continued polemic.
First of all, I think everyone involved in the debate admits that abortion is a direct violation of the prohibition of killing. Second, I don’t think anyone denies the relationship between sexual license and an abortion culture. A reading of the debate may give this impression, but the two sides have been forced into such awkward readings because they are responding to each other’s polemics.
I want to propose that a wider reading of the issue can get us past the incomplete positions that our polemics force us into. And I want to start by noting a very simple fact: the argument is about abortion’s relationship to two consecutive commandments. We are talking about the 5th and the 6th, not the 3rd and the 8th, or even the 5th and the 7th.
The commandments are not structured arbitrarily, and they are not simply structured from most grievous to least grievous sin. There is a logic inherent in them. The first three deal with our relationship with God because, without that, our relationship with our fellow humans (dealt with in the final 7) hasn’t a leg to stand on. They are not in this order because failing to keep a given Sabbath holy is of greater concern to the Almighty than killing a given human.
The first of the final 7 deals with our relationship to our parents because of its foundational nature in our human formation as moral people. The last four deal with our relationship to our neighbor, particularly our neighbour’s property and good name. That leaves number 5 and number 6, side by side, smack dab in the middle of the list. Why?
I propose that these two should be read together just as naturally as numbers 9 and 10. Have you ever noticed the correlation between those people and communities who think the world is 6,000 years old and those who believe in the rapture? The overlap is almost complete. Why? Because if you don’t understand the beginning, you don’t understand the end. Crazy ideas about creation lead to (or stem from) incoherent and unchristian ideas about God and God’s relationship to creation. And that leads to crazy ideas about eschatology.
Myth becomes useless, a lie. Symbolic religious language loses its power to convey deep truth and the only truth we have left is that utterly flat bit that fits under the rubric of the scientific method and modernist (not post-modernist) readings of history. Reality becomes so constricted that there is not room for real transcendence and God becomes one more actor on the stage of history, different from the rest only in terms of immense power. Yahweh abandons eternity and takes up abode, not in Bethlehem, but on Mount Olympus.
What does this have to do with the 5th and 6th commandments?
If, in the cosmic scheme, misconceptions about the beginning and the end are intertwined with each other and with misconceptions about the meaning of God, the universe and everything, the same is true in the social scheme. The commandments about murder and sex go side by side because murder ends life while sex initiates it. If you don’t understand the beginning of life, then you don’t understand the meaning of life. And if you don’t understand the meaning of life, you don’t understand the meaning of death.
But the commandments actually reverse the order of Genesis and Revelation. The prohibition to kill (the end) comes before the prohibition of adultery (beginning). In other words, we cannot truly understand life if we do not understand death. A few thousand years after the 10 Commandments were written, another Moses came along and said roughly the same thing. First he said, “those who lose their lives will find it.” And then he showed us how, dying on a cross before leaving the empty womb, I mean, tomb.
What does this relationship have to tell us about abortion? First of all, we are right to link abortion with sexual license. The right wing is correct if they point out that our material prosperity alone will not end abortion. We must change people’s attitudes towards sex and its place in human life. Without that, all the health-care, maternity leave, or childcare subsidies in the world will not stem the tide of blood.
But the right wing is incorrect to dismiss the place of such programs in reducing abortions. It is not simply that poor people in the richest nation in the history of the planet get abortions while living with air-conditioning, jewelry, cable TV and motor vehicles. It is that, in denying the importance of universal health care in such a wealthy country we make a statement about the value of life. In the vast expenditure of resources on military adventurism, we make a statement about the value of life. In the perpetuation of a gun-loving culture, we make a statement about the value of life. In the Satanic and ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor, we make a statement about the value of life. In the public executions by the state, and the fervid support thereof, we make a statement about the value of life. In the perpetuation of the consumerist status quo we distort, by utterly flattening, a genuine understanding of human fulfillment.
We tell people, by our actions and our political priorities that death is trivial and that life is dull. And then we tell them that it is their own selfishness that causes them to misunderstand sex. No. We must teach our children and our neighbors about the value and meaning of human sexuality if we hope to end abortion, but we will have no impact on their views about the beginning as long as our witness about the end is ambiguous. You can’t teach people that killing solves some problems, but not others. They won’t believe you.
Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of two (so far) and husband of one.
Comments are closed.
Thank you for this very positive post.
Thank you Matt. Glad you liked it.
Brett,
This is great. I’ll be sharing it.
Wow Brett, once again you hit a grand slam! I too thought that abortion is both a 5th and 6th commandment sin together, albeit you have stated reasons why more eloquently whereas in MM’s post I used common sense/layman’s thinking.
Great post.
“… in denying the importance of universal health care in such a wealthy country we make a statement about the value of life. In the vast expenditure of resources on military adventurism, we make a statement about the value of life. In the perpetuation of a gun-loving culture, we make a statement about the value of life”, etc.
Basically, it sounds to me like you’re saying that every major contemporary conservative policy position is anti-life. It’s not possible to be authentically pro-life and at the same time a Republican or a Tea Party member (unless of course you are a dissenting Republican or Tea Party member). Have I got that right?
Thus, to be authentically pro-life, you’ve got to be a liberal.
The problem with this argument, from my perspective, is the fact that liberals by a large margin tend to favor abortion. If the preference for government-run healthcare, and opposition to the death penalty, the right to bear arms, and war (although, what does it mean to “oppose war”? does it mean that each and every act of war is always wrong?), and the belief that money should be taken from the rich and given to the poor, are all essentially pro-life positions, then it would appear that the Democratic party is filled to the brim with hypocrites, since they take all these positions and yet also favor abortion.
It may be true that conservatives can’t truly claim to be authentically pro-life, while favoring various conservative policy positions. But if so, then it’s equally true that liberals can’t claim to be authentically pro-life by favoring various liberal policy positions, while at the same time favoring laws that permit abortion.
Now I get what the various VN bloggers have been saying: That the pro-life movement (“PLM”) is corrupted through its allegiance to the political right, which they consider anti-life in many substantial ways. They say that in actual practice, the PLM places its political allegiances above the welfare of the unborn, by favoring policies that contribute to the occurrence of abortions.
But I might suggest that a case could be made that certain pro-life Democrats do the same thing in reverse: Placing their political allegiance to the Democratic party above the need to be adamantly and publicly pro-life. This is demonstrated by the fact that you hear them loudly and often condemning conservatives and conservative politicians for favoring policy positions which in effect are anti-life. But how often do you see, on VN, anyone loudly and often condemning Democratic politicians for favoring laws that permit abortion?
It may be that the ideal position for a pro-life individual is not to hold the pro-life position while favoring various anti-life policies; nor to favor the pro-abortion position while favoring various liberal policy positions that are, in effect, pro-life (i.e. anti-war, pro-healthcare, etc.). But some VN bloggers condemn those who profess to be pro-life while holding anti-life positions; while hardly ever condemning those who favor various life-affirming policy positions while overtly expressing support for laws permitting abortion.
For this reason it appears that some VN bloggers are every bit as wedded to their political allegiances as they accuse “the pro-life movement” of being wedded to theirs.
[Sorry for the rambling nature of this comment but I am short on time.]
“… in denying the importance of universal health care in such a wealthy country we make a statement about the value of life. In the vast expenditure of resources on military adventurism, we make a statement about the value of life. In the perpetuation of a gun-loving culture, we make a statement about the value of life”, etc.
Basically, it sounds to me like you’re saying that every major contemporary conservative policy position is anti-life.
There is an argument for that.
It’s not possible to be authentically pro-life and at the same time a Republican or a Tea Party member (unless of course you are a dissenting Republican or Tea Party member). Have I got that right?
It wouldn’t be for is to say what is essential orthodoxy and what is not for those groups. They can decide for themselves. The CPAC Conference is struggling with that now.
Thus, to be authentically pro-life, you’ve got to be a liberal.
I would say anti-abortion liberals tend to be very good models of consistent pro-life witness.
It may be true that conservatives can’t truly claim to be authentically pro-life, while favoring various conservative policy positions. But if so, then it’s equally true that liberals can’t claim to be authentically pro-life by favoring various liberal policy positions, while at the same time favoring laws that permit abortion.
I don’t think any liberals here would disagree with that.
. This is demonstrated by the fact that you hear them loudly and often condemning conservatives and conservative politicians for favoring policy positions which in effect are anti-life. But how often do you see, on VN, anyone loudly and often condemning Democratic politicians for favoring laws that permit abortion?
I try to focus my opposition on condemning (or supporting) issue and policy positions, not individuals. If I have deviated from that at times, I apologize. But some of the debates here have been just that – those of us who are anti-abortion but object to the personal demonizing of individuals, particularly some degrading and disrespectful comments about the President and then Speaker Pelosi.
I’ve stated my opposition to abortion here multiple times. I don’t know if my frequency meets your standards. But when I have, I tend not to get any further response, which I understand to be because there is general consensus here on that question.
Cmon Agellius. You know that Brett is not saying that “to be authentically pro-life, you’ve got to be a liberal.” He is not a liberal and he is not a Democrat. This has been pointed out to you before. It would be helpful if you would not use these untrue and misleading labels to describe him.
Looking at his post, it would seem that what he is calling for is exactly what you are asking for: He points out where the right-wing position has it right and the left has it wrong. Therefore he cannot be saying “that every major contemporary conservative policy position is anti-life.” He then points out where the right-wing is wrong and the left has it right. He is attempting to put pro-life positions before political allegiance.
If there’s anything the recent spats about the “character” of the Vox-Nova blog has taught us, it should be that comboxes should engage the arguments of the poster, not some amorphous “character” of the blog. “Some” VN bloggers did not write this post. Brett did, and if you think that his political allegiance colours this post, you should at least have the courtesy to say so.
Ryan writes, “Cmon Agellius. You know that Brett is not saying that “to be authentically pro-life, you’ve got to be a liberal.” He is not a liberal and he is not a Democrat. This has been pointed out to you before. It would be helpful if you would not use these untrue and misleading labels to describe him.”
I wasn’t labeling Brett in any way, but was only responding to what he wrote.
Ryan writes, “if you think that [Brett's] political allegiance colours this post, you should at least have the courtesy to say so.”
I go out of my way to remain courteous on this blog at all times. I did not “have the courtesy” to say that Brett’s political allegiance colours his post, because the question of whether or not it did, never occurred to me. I simply read the post and responded to what it contained.
Ryan writes, “[Brett] points out where the right-wing position has it right and the left has it wrong. Therefore he cannot be saying “that every major contemporary conservative policy position is anti-life.” He then points out where the right-wing is wrong and the left has it right. He is attempting to put pro-life positions before political allegiance.”
Yes, he does point out where each side has it right and has it wrong. The right has got it right “if they point out that our material prosperity alone will not end abortion”. And that’s it. On the other hand, the right has it wrong on most major contemporary policy positions, all of which “make statement[s] about the value of life”; and he doesn’t mean good statements.
Other than that, I was putting in my one and only response to the Big Controversy (big on VN anyway), by pointing out, I believe correctly, that on VN there is very little condemnation of pro-choice liberals, but much condemnation of pro-life conservatives. I did not name names because I considered it a fairly obvious observation — one which, by the way, no one has contradicted — and I saw no need to make it personal. My point being simply to point out that if the political allegiances on the right are disturbing to pro-life liberals, the same may be said about those on the left, from the point of view of pro-life conservatives.
Great post. I like the schema you apply to the ten commandments, particularly the contextualization on the prohibition on adultery.
I will certainly remember (and likely borrow – with attribution of course) your last two sentences: “You can’t teach people that killing solves some problems, but not others. They won’t believe you.”
“First of all, I think everyone involved in the debate admits that abortion is a direct violation of the prohibition of killing. Second, I don’t think anyone denies the relationship between sexual license and an abortion culture.”
I will start with this quote first because comboxes are very, very tiny indeed. One issue that is overlooked in this debate is that all of the one million plus abortions in the U.S. yearly are not Catholic abortions.
Many in this country have a differing perspective and view abortions as something you perform on a clump of cells, (at least prior to the 3 month mark). Now this same group is also likely to view birth control through the same eyepiece. I am not disagreeing with your point that the two topics are not indeed linked.
What I am saying is yes, everyone at Vox Nova might be in agreement, and most within our Church might reach the same conclusion. Catholics in the U.S. however are not in the majority. For those who are not in our country club, attempting force our beliefs upon them smacks right up against their 1st amendment protections.
Did I wake up this morning a miss how we overthrew the U.S. government and now it is a Catholic state, and we have already rescinded the 1st amendment?
Yes Gisher, I meant the Catholic readership of VN.
Well then good sir I suggest that if legal remedies are the only solution on the table then the the pro-life groups are aiming at the wrong target.
If we wish to restrict both abortions and birth control then we must fight for a repeal of the 1st amendment.
I might point out that the 1st amendment allows Catholics the right to practice their own faith as they see fit. While it does not allow us to force our beliefs upon others, it does protect us from being forced to observe the beliefs of non-Catholics.
Therfor I belive we should proceed quite cautiously in any attempt to repeal the 1st amnedment as that sword may be turned against us rather quickly seeing how Catholics are not in the majority.
Perhaps other approached should be considered.
I don’t see how restricting abortion would be a 1st amendment issue. It’s not a question of religion. Whether the fetus has rights or not could very well be a secular question.
If one believes that a a fetus at one month is a clump of cells and not a fully formed human and they are not Catholic, that is indeed a 1st amendment issue.
If one believes as Catholics do that contraception should never be utilized and then attempts to force non-Catholics to follow the same policy then again, this is a 1st amendment issue.
The first amendment guarantees against an officially constituted state religion (such as the Church of England), it does not guarantee that no one will be subjected to laws which are contrary to their religious beliefs but in keeping with someone else’s religious beliefs.
For instance, there a some (I think deeply mistaken) Christians who believe that their religion requires them to severely beat their children for some infractions. I think that beating a child in this way is wrong — and what is more we as a country have banned the practice because most of us believe it is wrong.
This is not a violation of the first amendment.
Dan and DarwinCatholic:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Focus closely on the “free exercise thereof”
you both are too busy focusing on the
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
and as I have already stated in this thread, yes there are laws on the books now that violate the 1st that does not mean they are legal, it only means they have not been called up, or if they were, the judges were incompetent.
gisher,
It has been repeatedly ruled that “free exercise thereof” does not mean that anything someone claims is an element of his religion is therefore something which cannot be restricted.
To take the obvious extreme, if someone honestly believes that his religion requires human sacrifice, the constitution does not, therefore, exempt him from the laws against homicide.
You are, of course, free to have your own variant view of the meaning of this phrase, but it is not the meaning which has assigned to it by the US courts and congress.
gisher,
You’re confusing belief and religion. They are not equivalent.
Dan if you would not mind doing so, please explain how I am confusing belief and religion. Perhaps I made an error in semantics, perhaps not, but please do clarify your statement.
Religion is a subset of the beliefs someone may hold. For the atheist, it is an empty subset. If I believe a fetus should have rights, I may do so because of my religion, or I may also do so for purely humanistic/secular reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Neither case implies that it is a 1st amendment issue, as it is not intrinsically a religious matter.
Dan you are correct in your last remarks to a point however your point does not matter as the 1st amendment does not allow you to impose your religious beliefs or your personal beliefs on another unwilling person. Your personal beliefs are your way of life. If you look up the word religion, it states “your way of life”.
Frankly I have always felt the 1st amendment was overkill on this issue as the preamble (in my mind) was adequate enough an expression to cover this.
There was ample misinterpretation not very long after ratification to merit adding the 1st amendment.
Despite adding the 1st we have still had numerous intrusions upon those liberties from both sides of aisle and they continue to this day.
I have for instance never bought the appellate rulings that Christmas is a secular holiday.
Bad judgments are handed down almost every day from both liberal and conservative justices.
I should go right ahead and clarify my remarks on the preamble Dan, my apologies.
Simply put the preamble and it’s explicit allowance for “liberty” covers just about everything.
You are allowed to live your life as you see fit in so long as your actions do not impinge upon the liberty of others.
So very simple an expression but so poorly misunderstood by so many.
gisher,
I think it is important now and then to point out that the rate of abortion among Catholic women is basically the same (if not a little higher) than the rate of abortion among the entire population. Catholic pro-lifers, in seeking to legally ban abortion, are just as eager to prevent Catholic women from getting abortions as they are to prevent any other group of women from getting abortions.
The interesting question to ask in surveys of women who have had abortions would be whether, before they got pregnant and decided to have an abortion, they considered themselves pro-life. Of course, all groups will have some members who don’t live up to their own values — for example, “family values” politicians who have extramarital affairs. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. But speaking in general, some who don’t live up to their own professed standards are just normal, struggling humans with normal human weaknesses. But others are hypocrites.
In any case, when it comes to abortion, the Catholic Church has its work cut out for it within its own ranks. It might speak with a more authoritative voice if fewer Catholics had abortions.
I believe the rate is around 27% and agree totally with what you have said.
Still, we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater here. To go after our 27% by legal means would also require we went after non-Catholics and again, this means violating 1st amendment rights. Either that or the dangerous act of attempting to repeal it.
We already have procedures for handling the Catholics who have abortions. We cannot stop them by force, but we can educate, demonstrate by example, and when that fails there is repentance and forgiveness.
There is also stepping up and offering these women a good home for their unborn child, and help with medical expenses related to carrying the child to term.
There is the option of an overwhelming wave of love and enlightenment. I do not feel this method has been fully employed.
You betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment.
The first amendment does not prevent either the people or their representatives from considering the full range of voices and arguments relating to legal questions, thus arguments based on religious ideas of morality are as equally admissable to the debate as are some sort of secular ethics.
What the first amendment does not allow is forcing everyone to come to Mass, or pray the rosary, or any such thing as that.
If you read the founers on these questions, there is one essay that uses the example of goat sacrifice. The reasoning was the just because you thought the practice of a religion was disgusting, you could not then prohibit them from sacrificing goats so long as the killing/slaughtering of goats was generally to be permitted. Nor could a law be made against a religious practice on only a pretense of some other purpose. However, laws that apply in general and have a legitimate purpose can restrict religious activity. The example given was the rationing of food during a seige may well prevent the sacrifice of the goat.
In any case, I know of no current religion that considers abortion one of its forms of worship. Nor do I know of anyone who claims it is a form of free speech.
By your reading of the first amendment, if the emmancipation of the slaves was motivated by the conscience of religious folk (which abolition most certainly was), then in fact the first amendment required the slaves to be kept in bondage for fear of violating the first amendment rights of the slave holders.
I think that Gisher is trying to say that Catholics who wish their government to take on Catholic “laws” want to live in a Theocracy, and that is contrary to our current governmental nature…not so much getting hung up on specific amendments. Giving a “person” rights from the moment of conception is a slippery slope, and it isn’t something that this society, I think, will take on any time soon. It’s not Catholic Law, it’s US Law.
So you are part of a wide spread group of atheists and agnostics that are pro-life?
Sorry, but your views on abortion and WHY it is should be banned are not secular by any stretch of the imagination.
I actually do know many agnostics and atheists that think that abortion is vile, they however do not support banning the practice.
What you are trying to pull is the “Christmas is a secular holiday stunt”. Trust me, if I were on the Supreme court, the appellate ruling on Christmas would have been tossed into the Potomac.
Since this post is so well written and makes such a salient point, I anticipate there will be very little discussion in the comboboxes. Thanks for writing yet another meaningful article that will be ignored. :)
Brett 1, Dan 0
Brett,
I do very much appreciate this post, both in its clarity on the issues and in its attempt to bridge the gap between contentious sides.
Though at the same time, I suppose I find it a bit disheartening, in that it underscores how unbridgeable, in some ways, the gap between politically progressive and politically conservative Catholics is. So for instance, you say:
It is that, in denying the importance of universal health care in such a wealthy country we make a statement about the value of life.
But conservatives do not, generally speaking, oppose the progressive approach to universal health care because they think some people are not worth insuring — rather they oppose it because they believe that statist solutions to this problem are both dehumanizing and ineffective.
Or you say:
In the public executions by the state, and the fervid support thereof, we make a statement about the value of life.
And it is very true, my progressive friends oppose all war and all capital punishment because they believe it is never under any circumstances just to take life — the same reason they oppose abortion. And yet, those of us who are conservative tend to consider war and capital punishment just and necessary in some situations for the same reason that we oppose abortion — because we believe that innocent life must be protected at all costs.
Or even:
In the perpetuation of a gun-loving culture, we make a statement about the value of life.
And I confess I am at something of a loss as to how my buddies and I going down to the rifle range and shooting paper targets is an assault on the value of life — even as I am equally sure that for you the mere fact that otherwise nice guys who go to church and take care of their families want to go shoot guns is somehow indicative a sick and evil culture.
So many of the most important things in life we agree on, yet as soon as we step into the arena of public policy either of our visions of a well ruled state is the other’s distopia. It doesn’t give one much hope for political strife subsiding.
In response to your comment nearer to the top of this thread (ran out of room up there)
“To take the obvious extreme, if someone honestly believes that his religion requires human sacrifice, the constitution does not, therefore, exempt him from the laws against homicide.”
First of all you are confusing the granting of liberty of life with the the 1st amendment. Anyone murdered against their will is a crime by the original constitution, plain and simple.
I would however argue that anyone who wanted to be killed and was asking someone else to murder them, that in fact would be legal by both the original constitution as well as all the additional amendments.
Now clearly this sort of act is an express violation of Catholic doctrine but Catholic doctrine is not the Constitution.
You sir are free to as many incompetent judges have been to misinterpret both the constitution and Catholic doctrine. You may have to deal with the consequences once you come before God or a court of law, but that is entirely your choice as well.
I will also add before you ramrod your way in here trying to point out that the liberty of life aspect covers abortions, that if you take a fetus (baby) from the womb at about one month and plop it up right next to a piece of dried fruit in a court of law, a jury will have a hard time telling which one is human and which one is fruit.
Not to say the I personally support abortion, I do not sir. But clearly if someone views their child as a clump of cells then we have a rub with the 1st amendment.
I suggest if you desire to suppress this right of women that we make haste to legally determine at what point an actual human is present in the womb. Legally, using science, not Catholic Doctrine. That I think you could get the support from of many who now oppose you.
If by human you mean a unique human organism, then science makes clear, without any question, that takes place at conception.
If by human you mean a human person, that idea of person is itself essentially of religious and philisophical origins. There is no scientific basis for asserting that anyone or anything is a person. After all, science can very well assert that we live in a deterministic universe and that therefore there is no such thing as either free will or human freedom and that therefore the rights and legal standing of a person or being is so much sophistry. However, the western legal tradition makes much of the quesiton of persons, even though that concept is not scientific in origin.
By the way where exactly in history does the ideas of scientificially determined legal systems enter in? It seems a new-fangled notion at odds with both the common law and canon law traditions, which is to say the entire body of western legal thought.
No by human I mean not salamander which at a certain point in development the fetus is a dead ringer for.
And actually there is a measurement that is used on the way out that could be used on the way in, which would be brain wave activity. I think getting a brain wave (EEG) that is remotely similar to a newborn might be a good starting place. Perhaps an MRI could be used to fine tune it.
You see I don’t think either side wants to conduct the simple research that could set this benchmark because there are too many lobbies and associations on both sides making a real good living.
DarwinCatholic, this statement of yours:
“we believe that innocent life must be protected at all costs.”
conflicts directly with this statement of yours:
“those of us who are conservative tend to consider war and capital punishment just and necessary in some situations”
Innocent people have been executed and war also has killed innocents. It is quite obvious from your own statements that you in fact, do not believe innocent life must be protected at all costs.
Further it is obvious that you wish to pick and choose when you follow Catholic doctrine. So you are basically writing your own doctrine and you are deciding who should live or die. You have become both Pope and God, yet you are still just a human like me, but one who has just discredited his entire argument for all to see.
And yet, at the same time, gisher, the Church recognizes and has always taught that the use of capital punishment and war are necessary at some times in order to protect the innocent from grave injustices.
That innocent people can be executed and innocent people are killed in war is one of the reason why the Church urges caution in the use of both of these, but She does affirm that they are at certain times necessary. If you doubt me on this, you are welcome to look it up in the catechism, in Augustine, in Aquinas, or even just in Brett’s comment below.
I welcome you to function as a roving doctrinal enforcer, but do please get the doctrine right when you do so!
Dearest DarwinCatholic,
I copied all below entirely for your enlightenment:
COMPENDIUM
OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY
III. POLITICAL AUTHORITY
e. Inflicting punishment
405
["the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834]“]
Now this line: “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”
Would only apply in a case where there was no effective penal system. Quite obviously if we have convicted someone in the United States of a capital offense, we already have them securely maintained in our prison system.
Therefor, to then execute this person when they are already under lock and key and no threat to the citizenry is clearly a violation of our doctrine, which obviously only allows execution for countries where there is no effective penal system.
Again sir, you have not read Church doctrine, or you have forgotten it. In either case your support for the death penalty is a violation of our doctrine.
Therefor, you still are discrediting your own position on the sanctity of life and are effectively a rogue operator running outside the rules of of Church.
My God be with you sir.
Gisher,
Be assured, my friend, that I have read Catholic doctrine well and have not forgotten it. If one wanted to go into detail, one could quibble with your claim that once someone enters the penal system, he is never, ever a danger to anyone again, but this is not a thread on that topic and I see no reason to.
I said that conservatives defend capital punishment (and war) when necessary to protect the innocent — and you have agreed with me in pointing out that that Church permits these when they are necessary to protect the innocent.
I merely wanted to point out that capital punishment and war are the always and absolute offenses to life that abortion is, which is what would seem to be implied by Brett’s closing statement:
You can’t teach people that killing solves some problems, but not others. They won’t believe you.
There is a certain desire in progressive circles to suggest that all killing is equally wrong in the eyes of the Church. This is, however, a simplification, and like all simplifications, it distorts the facts to an extent.
Still. Keep it up. You are trying hard and given time you may get good at it.
Please do not attempt to put words into my mouth. I have never agreed with you that the Church permits capital punishment in the United States.
Precisely because we do have a very secure penal system the Church itself would not support what you on your own desire.
If we were some banana republic and only had a chicken wire fence, church doctrine would support that death penalty. That is clearly not our situation.
There is no digging out of the hole you are in sir, and and ask you to come back to the Church and accept it’s doctrines.
Dearest DarwinCatholic,
Regarding your position on war, not only are you flagrantly against church doctrine you yet again are contradictory with your own positions:
“While I still think the Iraq war did not meet the requirements of a just war, it is hard today to say that Bush was completely wrong.”
Taken from your post- What Would Bush Have Done?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Catholic Church has consistently considered the Iraq War to be an unjust war. That is Church Doctrine. Despite your comments declaring that you still consider it to be unjust, in the same breath you state that it was hard to say that it was completely wrong. You could look at a tree, tell us “it looks like a tree”, but then say “perhaps it’s maybe a dog.”
This is a repeating theme for you, you contradict your own statements and you also somehow find a way to rebuke official Church doctrine when you it does not fit in with your view of the world. You then claim that your view is official Church Doctrine.
The church’s position on the death penalty in America is the exact same position as it’s stance on the Iraq War. It is wrong. I have provided more than enough evidence in this thread to prove to any sane person that you sir are one step away from becoming an apostate. I am sure the evidence will not be adequate enough to penetrate your reality.
Further DarwinCatholic I thoroughly encourage you to proclaim to the mother of a son who died fighting in the Iraq War that her son’s death is in any way lower in status, any lesser a crime, in any way of less significance than an unborn child taken from this world by an abortion.
Please do so in this thread for all eyes to see. Please rank the value of the dead for us sir.
gisher,
I have not stated that the Church permits capital punishment in the United States — I have stated that it permits capital punishment at some times. On this, we are in agreement. (In argument, it is always best to argue with what your opponent actually says, rather than what you think he might think.)
Regarding your position on war, not only are you flagrantly against church doctrine you yet again are contradictory with your own positions:
That is not a post that I wrote. It was written by another author at a group blog for which I sometimes write.
The Catholic Church has consistently considered the Iraq War to be an unjust war. That is Church Doctrine.
Actually, it is not Church doctrine. That is not the type of topic on which one can have a doctrine. For instance, the Church can have a doctrine which says, “Sex outside of marriage is a grievous sin.” It cannot have a doctrine which says, “John and Mary are grievous sinners.”
It is a judgment made by many prominent leaders in the Church, including the current and previous pope, that military action in Iraq was not justified under Catholic just war doctrine.
Precision, please.
This is a repeating theme for you, you contradict your own statements and you also somehow find a way to rebuke official Church doctrine when you it does not fit in with your view of the world. You then claim that your view is official Church Doctrine.
Um, no. You are incorrect here. Most of your claims that I do this seem to result from jumping to conclusions or a momentary failure of reading comprehension skills. Still, with practice, I am sure we can hope for better! Do keep practicing and it will come to you.
Further DarwinCatholic I thoroughly encourage you to proclaim to the mother of a son who died fighting in the Iraq War that her son’s death is in any way lower in status, any lesser a crime, in any way of less significance than an unborn child taken from this world by an abortion.
All human lives are precious and unique. I do not in any way think that the life of an American soldier (or an Iraqi soldier, or an Iraqi civilian) is less precious in the eyes of God than the life of an unborn child.
That said, I am not clear at all how your logic works above. You have stated that the Iraq War is completely unjust, and thus, it seems, clearly evil. If that is so, then it would seem that given that we have a volunteer army, a soldier who died fighting in Iraq died while committing a horrible injustice and crime.
So if what you want is for someone to stage a drama moment before the mother of a man who died fighting in Iraq, then I am afraid that you would have to go up to her and say that you believe her son died while participating a grave injustice and that you are glad he was killed before he could harm any more innocent Iraqis.
There used to be some committed pacifists around here who were pretty much willing to say that. I, myself, am not, because I think there is a good enough case to be made for the justice of the Iraq war that most people fighting in the war or supporting the war believe themselves to be acting justly. You, apparently, do not see this ambiguity. So if you want to go stage a drama moment. Feel free.
I have read your response to my last 3 comments to you. I will let your comments stand, and I will let my comments stand.
Doctrine is doctrine sir, and dodging is dodging. Let the world decide how authentic and genuine you are.
My mind has long since been made up on that matter and I forgive you sir. God asks me to do that, he asks all of us to forgive, but I am quite sure you have gnawed your way around forgiveness as well.
It occurred to me afterwards that there might appear to be some dissonance between my acceptance of just way theory and the theoretical possibility of the death penalty if it were the only way to protect the innocent and the last two sentences of the post.
For the record, I believe that even the most justified war still damages those who are forced to conduct it, individuals and cultures. And to execute a human being, guilty or not, is a brutal act.
They are not the same as abortion, no. But they do not build up a culture of life, however necessary they may be in rare occasions. They are always and everywhere a tragedy.
For the record, I believe that even the most justified war still damages those who are forced to conduct it, individuals and cultures. And to execute a human being, guilty or not, is a brutal act.
I would definitely agree with this.
I think the only question I would have as to their relation to “building a culture of life” is whether the alternative is always better than the necessary but tragic act.
In other words, I think that fighting a war is always destructive to a culture of life, but it seems to me that at times not fighting a war in a set of circumstances which would justify one might be even more destructive to a culture of life.
A few quick things. I may have to go into more detail tonight, but I NEED to finish reading a book today.
1. I do not take gun-using and gun-loving to be synonymous. I grew up in a small town where a substantial minority (and maybe even a majority) had firearms. They were mostly for deer and gopher. But there was no gun culture, no collection of semi-automatics and ridiculous and unnecessary ammo. I never got the sense that someone was brandishing his weapon out of small-man syndrome.
In my view handguns are for police and soldiers. If you want to shoot them at the range, they should stay at the range. (Though I can certainly think of more life-affirming past-times than practicing the use of an implement specifically designed to kill human persons.) No one needs a hand gun at home, never mind at the mall.
2. I don’t think you can deny universal health care in the wealthiest country in the world. I do think you can have various ideas about how such a right is to be guaranteed. Keep in mind that I’m from Canada. The idea that the proposed American solution is “statist” doesn’t make much sense to me.
3. I’m OK with capital punishment when it is the only way to protect the innocent. That’s not the case in the US.
4. I support just war, though I admit to being very strict in my interpretation of what constitutes one. I think the Catholic Church is likewise very strict. I said military adventurism, not war in general, for a reason.
5. Yes, Agellius, Democrats who support legal abortion are not true progressives. They have not understood the fundamental aspect of community that is represented by the mother with child. And they have neglected the weakest. Progressives are supposed to value community and stand up for the weak.
1. I do not take gun-using and gun-loving to be synonymous. I grew up in a small town where a substantial minority (and maybe even a majority) had firearms. They were mostly for deer and gopher. But there was no gun culture, no collection of semi-automatics and ridiculous and unnecessary ammo. I never got the sense that someone was brandishing his weapon out of small-man syndrome.
In my view handguns are for police and soldiers. If you want to shoot them at the range, they should stay at the range.
[I realize this is a digression from your topic -- so feel free to leave this unpublished if necessary.]
I am not, in origin, a small town boy. I grew up in Los Angeles, which is not notable for wide open spaces that are not paved. So while I have no principled objection to shooting gophers and deer, I have never shot a gun at a living thing in my life.
I’m not sure how to explain it other than to say that it’s cultural. But while I’m aware that a handgun could be useful for self defense, I own and shoot them simply because it’s fun and challenging. Not sure if that’s “life-affirming” or not, but I can’t see that there’s a great moral difference between shooting one of my bolt-action rifles at a paper target and shooting one of my semi-automatic rifles or pistols at a paper target. Either way, the target ends up with holes in it, and when I’m done I lock it up safely it its case and put it away.
And frankly, having grown up in LA, although I keep all firearms safely locked up in such a while they’d be slow to get at — it doesn’t bother me at all that my fellow shooters possess the same kind of pistols that police and soldiers do. I trust them, and I trust myself, and most of the time the police show up in time to pick up the pieces. It’s not my intention to ever use a gun in self defense, any more than it’s my intention to have crash when I buckle my seat belt, but I can’t begrudge people the peace of mind. And I don’t think there’s anything particularly magical about police and soldiers.
But conservatives do not, generally speaking, oppose the progressive approach to universal health care because they think some people are not worth insuring — rather they oppose it because they believe that statist solutions to this problem are both dehumanizing and ineffective.
Darwin,
I don’t know what Brett was thinking when he wrote this, but he certainly did not say that universal health care had to be achieved by a “progressive” approach. Do political conservatives who are also Catholic not believe health care is a right? Doesn’t the Church teach that health care is a right? Are there no conservative approaches to seeing that everyone in a rich country like ours has access to basic health care? Or is the conservative view basically that no one, no matter how rich, should be required to pay for anyone else’s health care, no matter how needy those people might be?
David,
Do political conservatives who are also Catholic not believe health care is a right?
I think that depends a great deal on how one addresses the question of “rights”. Generally speaking, it seems to me that conservatives focus more on negative rights (rights not to be interfered with by others) while progressives focus on positive rights (the right to be given something.) The term “right to health care” is more in the language or positive rights than negative rights, and so many conservatives are not going to like the terminology.
The Church also, after all, talks of a “right to food” and “right to shelter” yet few people propose a universal single payer food program or a universal single payer housing program.
for the poor.
I don’t know what Brett was thinking when he wrote this, but he certainly did not say that universal health care had to be achieved by a “progressive” approach.
Given that it is conservative opposition to a moderately progressive “solution” to the right to health care which Mornings Minion had been throwing in the rhetorical face of conservative pro-lifers, I took this to be the topic at issue.
The term “right to health care” is more in the language or positive rights than negative rights, and so many conservatives are not going to like the terminology.
Darwin,
My question was about Catholic conservatives.
I know the pope was not speaking infallibly. But when the pope says access to adequate medical attention is one of the inalienable rights of man, do Catholic conservatives just dismiss the statement out of hand as a “prudential judgment,” the same way they dismiss John Paul II’s statements about the need for capital punishment being so rare as to be almost nonexistent?
Is there anything at all that non-Catholic conservatives take for granted but Catholic conservatives say, “Well, you know, the Church teaches X, and on this matter, we have to be Catholics first and conservatives second”?
David writes, “Or is the conservative view basically that no one, no matter how rich, should be required to pay for anyone else’s health care, no matter how needy those people might be?”
No, that is not the conservative view, and if you think it is I would like you to provide a quote to back it up. What that is is a logical deduction that liberals often make, the syllogism running something like this:
A. Everyone who cares about the poor favors government-run healthcare.
B. Conservatives oppose government-run healthcare.
C. Therefore conservatives don’t care about the poor.
The flaw, of course, is that premiss A is false: There are some people who care about the poor, yet still don’t favor government-run healthcare. There is no logical contradiction between those two positions.
David writes, “Doesn’t the Church teach that health care is a right? Are there no conservative approaches to seeing that everyone in a rich country like ours has access to basic health care?”
I think the conservative view is that healthcare should be run according to a market system, just as food, clothing and shelter are. If I oppose government being in charge of housing for all citizens, regardless of whether they want to live in government housing, it doesn’t follow that I don’t care whether poor people have shelter.
I have my own, no doubt biased, views of what conservatism is all about, but if I had wanted to give them, I would have made statements instead of asking questions. I will be interested to see the answers from other conservatives, if any choose to respond.
I think the conservative view is that healthcare should be run according to a market system, just as food, clothing and shelter are.
So the Catholic Church teaches that health care is a right, yet you seem to be saying that those who can afford it should be able to buy it themselves, and those who can’t afford it will have to fend for themselves. Does this mean you oppose Medicare, guaranteed access to emergency rooms, and other government efforts currently in effect for the poor. And regarding food, do you oppose food stamps? And regarding shelter, subsidized housing? Do you think someone who is severely disabled and has no one to take care of him should live by the market system? Or do you feel government should get out of the business of trying to provide for the poor and leave it to private charity?
David writes, “… you seem to be saying that those who can afford it should be able to buy it themselves, and those who can’t afford it will have to fend for themselves.”
If we’re being hyperbolic, I might just as easily observe that you “seem to be saying” that the government should take over all distribution of food, clothing and shelter, lest anyone should have to “fend for himself” in regard to those essential needs.
But in truth, very few people call for a government takeover of those commodities, because the market somehow manages to make them widely available at prices that the vast majority of people can afford — despite the involvement of evil and greedy corporations at virtually every step of the process. And when people genuinely can’t afford them, then government and various charities step in to supply the lack.
If the free market has not managed to supply adequate access to healthcare for all people, then I believe the conservative viewpoint would suggest that the reason it has not, is because government and employer-provided insurance have artificially driven up costs. When people don’t pay for things directly, they are insulated from their true cost; and when costs are distributed among thousands or millions of people, or paid by the government, increases in costs seem easily absorbed, therefore healthcare providers (including doctors, hospitals, medical equipment suppliers, drug suppliers, etc.) feel free to charge more and more, year after year. (We see the same phenomenon in regard to higher education costs.) Whereas if people had to pay their doctor bills directly, there would be more of an immediate pushback in response to cost increases, thus moderating their frequency and degree. (Witness the increasing popularity, and yet the *decreasing* cost, of laser eye surgery.)
Put the distribution of all food, clothing and shelter in the hands of the government or insurance companies and see if costs don’t skyrocket.
Agellius, I am curious about what a market solution to heathcare would look like, one that would ensure everyone, regardless of the ability to pay, received health care. Perhaps to at least pay lip service to Brett’s post, we could amend the question so that it was about how a market system could contribute to a Culture of Life.
I ask this as a genuine question. In the interests of full disclosure, I have lived in the United States and in Canada, and my own preference by far is the Canadian system. I suppose the corollary to the question I ask you is for me to think about how the Canadian system (which is essentially a single-payer insurance system with premiums paid through taxes) does or doesn’t contribute to a Culture of Life. But I am genuinely interested in your perspective on this issue.
Ryan writes, “I am curious about what a market solution to heathcare would look like …”
Please see my response above to David. I think that if healthcare were allowed to operate on market principles in the same way that food and clothing do, then it would be affordable for the vast majority. Those who could not afford it would certainly deserve charitable assistance.
What that is is a logical deduction that liberals often make, the syllogism running something like this:
A. Everyone who cares about the poor favors government-run healthcare.
B. Conservatives oppose government-run healthcare.
C. Therefore conservatives don’t care about the poor.
I imagine I am not have a perfect understanding of conservatives, but that statement shows a woefully ignorance of what liberals stand for.
I am usually reluctant to make such broad statements, but I can firmly say that American liberals have no particular interest in government run health care. It is something we are totally indifferent to.
We care that every American has adequate health care. As liberals, we give the private market first crack at delivering. It has failed. Only with the failure of the private market to provide universal health care do we turn to other means to this end.
We now are in the process of a hybrid system in which (following the success of liberals in 1965) we have a single payer system for insured Americans over age 65, and a system largely dependent on the private sector, aided by tax credits and purchasing exchanges for American under age 65.
Kurt writes, “I am usually reluctant to make such broad statements, but I can firmly say that American liberals have no particular interest in government run health care. It is something we are totally indifferent to.”
I won’t argue with you. But most of the liberals whom I have heard opine on the matter seem quite attached to the idea.
Kurt writes, “Only with the failure of the private market to provide universal health care do we turn to other means to this end.”
As explained above, I suggest that it has failed because it has not been run as a true market system for several decades (as is also the case with higher education).
Agellius,
I think you are not listening very carefully to liberals. Our position is that we want universal health care. It doesn’t matter a wit if it is done by government or successfully done by some other social actor.
And if you think for the past few decades we have not had a free market in health care, I would point out to you that at no point in American history has the private market been successfull to this. The Catholic Church has been demanding national health reform care since 1919.
Good article and thought-provoking.
The countries of Western Europe all have universal health care. They spend a faction of what we do, proportionally, on their militaries. Most ban most private gun ownership. Their tax systems are more progressive, and their gap between rich and poor is much narrower, than ours. They forbid capital punishment.
And yet all these countries still permit widespread abortion. All have fertility levels well below replacement levels. And most are becoming increasingly tolerant of euthanasia.
You may be right in the policy prescriptions you offer for the U.S. But your suggestion that these are what will build a genuine Cutlure seems unfounded.
er, I mean “genuine Culture of Life”
Fds – I don’t think Brett is saying that universal health care, lower military spending, gun rights and progressive tax systems will necessarily build a genuine Culture of Life. I think what he is saying is that failing to care for the health of the poor, massive military spending, fetishizing gun ownership and an increasing gap between rich and poor is a sign of a Culture of Death.
You are right that simply changing these policies will not necessarily build a culture of life. There is much more to it than that. But continuing these policies (and worse, calling them virtuous) will certainly build the culture of death.
Ryan,
I really should just let you answer all my critics for me. You have written what I was thinking much better than I wrote it (before checking and approving the comments).
If I’m ever elected to public office, I’ll ask you to be my press secretary.
Or you could just write my blog posts for me. ;)
I’d be your press secretary anytime. It’s way easier to be the person who says things for others than to be the person who has to think up what to say.
Now finish reading that book!
Turning gun ownership into a fetish is a bad thing. (I have never met anyone who did that. Are there actual real people that do? I guess there are, after all some people believe they have been abducted by aliens.)
However, from a conservative point of view, there is an irrational fear of guns that many suspect points to an irrational fear of other ordinary people and also an unwillingness to defend those in need. It basically mirrors the health care issue. Conservatives think that individuals can do more and better with helping people than the govenrment will, and that the government can’t really be trusted. Liberals think the government can do more and better and that individuals can’t be trusted. Both notions actually share a common flaw, and if we were in a bar I would buy a drink for the first person to solve that puzzle.
I wish we were in a bar too, but I fear we would all be buying our own drinks ;)
smf,
You misunderstand liberals. Liberals have no innate preference for government. The private market, individuals, family, and non-governmental organizations (churches, labor unions, associations, charities)m get first crack at solving any social problem. It is only when all of these have failed that there is a case for government. And even then, liberals believe that government should seek to only serve in the minimal role needed while employing those other social actors. Hence the health care reform is achieved by a combination of individual, family, private market, NGO and state and federal government.
If by liberal you are speaking of classical liberals I would say you are spot on.
If by liberal you mean the sort of post-modern American statist commonly calling themselves and called by the public a “liberal” then I must disagree. Of that latter sort of liberal I have never met one who did not generally think the government should do something about whatever problem was at hand.
Also, I would say that the conservatives (who in post-modern America are really neo-liberals) would likely suggest that poor public policy is in fact a part of the problem, in the sense that the government is in the way of a real solution and should thus make itself less intrusive.
smf,
Well, I just have to say you are mistaken about modern American liberals. The “statist” accusation is simply something invented by conservatives.
I can’t be held responsible for the fact you don’t have a representative array of liberal friends.
But I would agree with you that conservative generally call for public programs to be abolished withotu offering any real plan to take theri place other than just an assumption that in some unknown way, the private market will solve all problem, despite the evidence of history.
I wonder, FdS, if the pro-life movement in Europe has been part of the movement that got all those things put in law, or if they’ve often discredited the pro-life message by associating mostly with the militant, xenophobic, ultra-right-wing parties. I ask this honestly, because I really don’t know. I would also like to hear from someone who knows what has tended to happen with the Christian Democrats in Europe on the question of abortion.
FdS,
And western Europe has the lowest abortion rates anywhere outside the Muslim world. Any self-respecting American pro-lifer should be willing to give their left eye for such a low incidence of abortion here.
Abortion is the violation of the first commandment for those who believe that God exists. Abortion exists where love does not.
We break all of the commandments each time we break any of them. If you think on it long enough, this becomes clear. It is a painful and sobering exercise.
See:
James 2:10
SMF, I agree. I like verse 13 also, “For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”
Amen.
Fantastic post.
By the same token, I would suggest the possibility that unless and until the country gets abortion right, it won’t be capable of getting something like universal health care right: universal “health care” will mean universal access to contraception, abortion and euthenasia, among other things.
Putting universal “health care” into the hands of the present culture is like putting racists in charge of desegregation, or warmongers in charge of peace talks.
It strikes me as plausible that the order of the commandments reflects this precedence: if a society enshrines as a “right” the brutal, mass-scale murder of its most innocent, that society will be incapable of caring for its less weak members with genuine compassion, pursuing their genuine good. Sure, we can, with the best of intentions, enact universal health care laws; but what we will get from that enactment will be expansion-to-universalization of the murder of the most innocent and most helpless.
Cart, horse, and all that.
This goes back to the idea that the living don’t count for much, while the unborn count for everything. Why can’t we work at both? Why does it have to be one before the other?
Because a society which murders tens of millions of its most innocent and helpless under the rubric of “rights” will not in fact care for the living. Instead, “universal health care” will become primarily a mechanism for destroying people (spiritually and physically) rather than pursuing what is objective good for them.
The suggestion, again is that you can’t get to legitimate universal health care without addressing abortion first. Not that abortion is a higher priority on some pareto chart; but that as a question of the nature of things, if the mass-murder of the unborn is not addressed first you simply can’t get there from here.
Bob,
You can’t give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy and lessen government regulation and act on the rest of the TEA Party agenda until you first deal with the abortion funding that private enterprise includes in their employee healh insurance policies and their support for Planned Parenthood.
Until you address the mass murder that private enterprise finances, you really can’t get to the TEA Party agenda.
Kurt,
I agree.
Sure, we can, with the best of intentions, enact universal health care laws; but what we will get from that enactment will be expansion-to-universalization of the murder of the most innocent and most helpless.
Bob,
First, I think many here (not just evil me) believe there are adequate safeguards in the health care bill that keep it from promoting abortion. But even if not, it seems to me you are putting the unborn ahead of everyone else. Until the unborn are protected to your satisfaction, the poor, the disabled, and uninsured children will just have to do without health care.
what a bunch of horseshit.
[I'm gonna let this stand because I think it actually says a lot. I will not be allowing any comments that respond in kind. BS]
Except that the term “health care” is equivocal here. What “everyone else” will get will not be health care; it will be a widening of the road to Hell.
The proposal is that you literally can’t have — it is not possible to have – universal health care (understood as a good thing) in a society which not only murders tens of millions of its most innocent and defenseless wholesale, but enshrines those murders in a legal “right”. You can pass a universal health care law; but what you actually get won’t be universal health care. It will be something else entirely, something wicked and destructive, under that label.
Care to describe Bob how universal health care will be something wicked and destructive? I mean specifically list what wicked and destructive things will happen if the U.S were to adopt a universal health care system.
You can use Canada as a reference point if you so desire but please list specifics if you have them.
contraception
If one is Catholic, contraception is not a desirable result in any situation. That said, Catholics are not in the majority in this country.
Further there will be contraception regardless of whether we have Universal health-care or not so your response does not qualify as as a wicked and destructive thing that will happen if the U.S were to adopt a universal health care system.
Bob writes, “universal health care (understood as a good thing) in a society which not only murders tens of millions of its most innocent and defenseless wholesale…”
Bob: An astute observation! Hard to call healthcare “universal” when a million persons every year are excluded due to having been deliberately — and legally — killed.
“Free enterprise (understood as a good think) in a private market which murders tens of millions of its most innocent and defenseless, wholesale (and sometimes retail)”
Bob – perhaps I’m not understanding you. Are you saying the health care system leads those who use it along the road to Hell? How are we to get medical care? Or is it moral for those of us who can afford it to pay for health care, but immoral for us to help pay for those who can’t afford health care?
If what we have now is a system that enshrines murder as a legal right, shouldn’t we refuse to participate ourselves in such a system?
Respectfully I might add that I think it would be a good thing if you were to inquire within the thread to Jasper and ask her what she meant by her remark.
We have a massive amount of darkness and misinformation out there and many people in need of comfort from fear. Maybe Jasper doesn’t have any answers, or maybe we cannot reach Jasper. But at the very least we can show her love.
It is obvious to me there is just not enough love out there right now and isn’t that what our Church and Jesus Christ are all about?
I already suggested some of them above. As for Canada? See here, for example.
Again, it strikes me as entirely plausible that what Catholics legitimately want from universal health care cannot be achieved – is literally impossible to achieve – in a society with a “right” to abortion with 3000 babies going through the murder mills every day. The ordering of the commandments seems to support the prioritization implied by the nature of things, if indeed that is the nature of things.
Anyway, I’ve made my suggestion for those who are open to the possibility, and don’t see much point in repeating myself.
Bob you linked to abortion, and we have abortion already, and we also have birth control. They are here right now and have been here for quite a while all without Universal Health care.
So you are incorrect. I asked you to list specifically what would be wicked and destructive things will happen if the U.S were to adopt a universal health care system. Not to list something that has already happened without it.
Again I offer you the chance to list something NEW that would occur as a result of having Universal Health care, NOT something we already have.
I think what people want from Healthcare is to get your basic treatments without having to go into debt or be taken to a collection agency. I can remember years back when my son cut his hand in carpentry class in school. We took him to the hospital that was covered under our insurance. Had his hand stitched up and treated. I wound up with a $450.00 bil that was declined from the insurnace company, because the anesthesiologist wasnt covered by my insurance. How would I have ever known that? Now for a family who lives week to week (or paycheck to paycheck) that already carries a fair amount of debt, you can see how easily one could end up in a collection agency. For a simple procedure like stitches? Well this goes on all of the time with plenty of Americans. I would rather have the Canadian system any day of the week.
Single payer health care only works if you are willing to ration care by government fiat.
Rationing care is inevitable, for the supply is less than the demand, and always will be. Under the current system price is part of the way demand is kept in check. Under single payer, there will be no price to the end user, and thus no incentive to not use the systems benefits at every opportunity. Thus demand will increase, forcing more and more decisions about rationing care by other means.
This plays out with very generous plans in the private sector now. There is a retired public school teacher I know of who goes to the doctor at least once a weak on average, not because of any chronic illness, but because it is free. Head ache? Go to the doctor. Indigestion? Go to the doctor. Sore muscles? Go to the doctor. Discovered you policy will cover massage with a prescription? Go to the doctor. Heard you can get your policy to include a glass of red wine a night? Go to the doctor… you get the point.
The only other way to discourage people from going to the doctor other than price, is to make the process very unpleasant. You can have rude staff. You can make very long waits. You can create a night mare or red tape and beurocrats. You can make the care of very low quality so no one wants it. You can even make the system so slow most people die before coming up for treatment.
Medicare does this sort of thing now. A late sixties gentleman I know has problems with his skin that need to be removed from a number of places. His old private union insurance allowed him to get as many of these removed in one visit as required. Medicare only pays for one to be removed per visit, so he must schedule many many visits to the specialist, after getting propper referals of coarse. The total cost is much higher under Medicare because it incurrs costs for many visits. What Medicare hopes is that he will give up on being treated and stop using the benefits. Plus their actuaries tell them that the longer his treatment takes the better the chance he will die before any additional costs are incurred.
smf writes, “Under single payer, there will be no price to the end user, and thus no incentive to not use the systems benefits at every opportunity.”
I would argue that that’s the way it is now, and that that’s the primary reason healthcare insurance premiums have been skyrocketing for decades: People figure, I’m paying these outrageous premiums so I’m going to get my money’s worth. The out-of-pocket costs compared to the premiums that have already been paid are relatively negligible. People don’t see a direct connection between high premium costs and the services they receive, because the premiums are the same whether they use the services or not. Whereas under a market system, they would only pay money when they actually used the services.
And by the way, it’s not only a matter of how often people go to the doctor. It’s also the fact that when cost is no object, people expect and demand the latest and best medicines, tests and medical equipment, regardless of cost.
In other words, healthcare costs are rising uncontrollably because people are behaving as if there were no scarcity. They demand unlimited care and the very best procedures and equipment with no consideration as to cost, because they are not paying the cost directly. But it has to be paid for nonetheless, therefore it gets paid for by skyrocketing premiums.
There is no reason to suppose that this would change under a government-mandated system. The conditions that result in rapidly rising costs would still exist.
Agellius seems to make the case against comprehensive private medical insurance and argue that medical costs should be paid a la carte.
I’m sure there is some guy out there who is driving up insurance costs because he thinks going for an unneeded proctology exam is a fun way to spend an afternoon. I don’t think it is a huge number.
I think you are mostly on target.
My ideal system would have insurance (private or public) cover a very basic and minimal set of preventative type medicine on a regular schedule (annual physical, that sort of thing).
After that you pay for your medical care, ideally out of a tax advantaged savings/investment account.
At some point, a catastrophic policy would kick in and cover those costs beyond what can reasonably be paid. There might even be a sliding scale where it begins to kick in a bit at a time the higher the costs go, so it pays perhaps 25% up to some amount, then 50% to some other, then 75 to another, and eventually perhaps 95 to another, and even 100 at some point.
smf: I agree completely. I didn’t mention catastrophic insurance because I was mainly speaking of the causes of rising premiums in terms of the general principles at play.
But of course people should have a safety net in case of catastrophic illness or accident, just as people now have fire insurance on their homes.
That is basicly the plan proposed by Senator Kerry in his 2004 Presidential campaign.
Kurt writes, “I think you are not listening very carefully to liberals. Our position is that we want universal health care. It doesn’t matter a wit if it is done by government or successfully done by some other social actor.”
It may be that I don’t listen carefully, or it may be that you are overreaching in purporting to set forth the position of liberals in general.
But my purpose is not to argue over what official liberal doctrine consists in. In my view the point is that liberals, at least in the present circumstances, overwhelmingly favor government-run healthcare. Conservatives on the other hand, oppose it in principle; which liberals generally do not. I don’t think it’s unreasonably careless of me to summarize these opposing positions as “liberals favor government healthcare, and conservatives oppose it”.
If you insist that liberals favor it only in the present circumstances, fine. Nevertheless, the salient point is that liberals have no objection to it in principle, whereas conservatives do.
Kurt writes, “And if you think for the past few decades we have not had a free market in health care, I would point out to you that at no point in American history has the private market been successfull to this. The Catholic Church has been demanding national health reform care since 1919.”
I would like to see the demands that “the Church” has been making. In any event, since as you agree, “reform” doesn’t necessarily mean “government-run”, I can’t be sure of the relevance of such demands to my argument.
Agellius,
This dialogue has been helpful. I think you now understand that the liberal principle is universal coverage with indifference if it be by public action or market action. The conservative principle is opposition to public action on health care, with indifference as to if the results be universal coverage or massive lack of coveage.
We each have our point of principle and our point of indifference.
As for the Church, I would refer to to the life and work of the Rt. Rev. Msgr. John A. Ryan, the Bishops’ spokeperson on social issues, and the statements of the National Catholic War Conference (later the National Catholic Welfare Conference) in the early part of the last century.
http://archives.lib.cua.edu/res/docs/education/bishops/pdfs/bp-1919.pdf
http://archives.lib.cua.edu/res/docs/education/bishops/pdfs/bp-1919.pdf
As interesting as this document is in its own right, by its own description it’s authored by an administrative committee. Its purpose was to address conditions immediately after the First World War.
Healthcare has been reformed several times in different ways since then, largely by having government take a bigger hand in it, but also by having employers pay for employee health insurance, as recommended in the document. The document, by the way, specifically does not advocate government-funded health insurance.
I do love the opening line of its concluding section, which, furthermore, comes from a pope (Leo XIII): “Society can be healed in no other way than by a return to Christian life and Christian institutions.”
Healthcare has been reformed several times in different ways since then…
Yes, and towards the bishops’ goal of universal coverage, that was honored in 1965 with passage of single payer health care for all Americans, modified only by a brief 65 year waiting period until benefit eligibility, and now by the new reform extending coverage to 32 million left out of the previous reform.
Kurt writes, “The conservative principle is opposition to public action on health care, with indifference as to if the results be universal coverage or massive lack of coveage.”
Good grief. Is casting each other’s statements in the worst possible light, really the best we can do?
I don’t know how. You may very clear that for the conservatives the First Principle is opposition to a public program with other factors secondary. Liberals hold universal coverage as the First Principle with the question of who delivers it to be secondary.
Kurt writes, “You may very clear that for the conservatives the First Principle is opposition to a public program with other factors secondary.”
That is an erroneous interpretation of my remarks. I was defending the conservative side against the charge that its opposition to a government-run universal healthcare system implies that conservatives don’t “value life”.
I said clearly that I thought a true market-based system would make healthcare, as it makes food and clothing, affordable to the vast majority; and that those who genuinely could not afford it, could and should be assisted by charitable groups or the government, as is currently the case with food, clothing and shelter.
I don’t see in any of my statements an indication of disregard for “massive lack of coverage” (whatever you may mean by that).
I absolutely believe that people have an obligation to assist those in need who are incapable of helping themselves. Therefore indifference to the plight of those who through no fault of their own are without needed healthcare would obviously contradict my beliefs.
I would have thought it could be assumed that someone who has identified himself as a devout Catholic, should be given the benefit of the doubt, by other Catholics at least, that he has concern for the poor, absent any explicit statement to the contrary.
Again, I think this failure to give the benefit of the doubt, lends support to the contention that those on the liberal side tend to equate opposition to government-run healthcare with lack of concern for the poor.
“massive lack of coverage” (whatever you may mean by that).
50 million Americans for whom the free market has failed even with government programs for the disabled and elderly. That is what it means.
I don’t think liberals equate opposition to government-run healthcare with lack of concern for the poor, in that we liberals just supported the enactment of a health care program that is run by the private sector.
So far the only thing we have on the table from conservatives is a plan to extend coverage to an estimated 3 million of the 50 million uninsured.
For the record, Agellius et al., I consider the left at least as complicit as the right in the perpetuation of consumerism that voids life of its relish and adventure, capturing us in the boring quest for stuff. Consumerism flows from materialism and the left remains wildly materialist.
The American left isn’t all that distinguished in its opposition to what I have termed “military adventurism” either.
So, though many assume critiques of war and consumerism to be partisan, I did not mean them as such.
I was attempting cultural critique broadly, though I acknowledge that some of the sins outlined do fall more on one side or other of the political spectrum.
Brett: I appreciate that clarification.
smf writes, “Of that latter sort of liberal I have never met one who did not generally think the government should do something about whatever problem was at hand.”
So I’m not the only one after all! : )