Victor Reppert recently did a post on Obamacare. Now he’s upset about how his post was treated at Tblog.
The primary problem with Obamacare is that Obamacare is a Trojan horse for euthanasia. In the ’08 election, I myself issued a prescient warning to that effect:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/victor-reppert-every-baby-butchers-best.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-improving-moral-tone-of-political.html
Predictably, if unfortunately, my warning came true. Wesley J. Smith, for one, has been cataloguing the implementation of a eugenic agenda under Obama:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/31/john-holdren-the-unreported-story/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/30/what-does-ezekiel-emanuel-really-believe-about-rationing-age-maybe-quality-of-life-yes/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/30/obama-science-adviser-trees-should-be-allowed-to-sue-babies-not-yet-human-beings/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/29/obamacare-mandatory-counseling-provision-really-a-pay-the-provider-provision/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/29/obamacare-physician-worries-about-the-reeducation-camps-for-seniors/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/29/obamacare-aarps-betrayal-of-senior-citizens-and-support-of-end-game-counseling/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/27/obamacare-the-attack-of-the-bioethicists/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/24/obama-health-care-advisers-support-invidious-rationing-of-health-care/
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/full-court-press-continues-for-health-care-rationing/
And what did Reppert learn from his negligence? Nothing. When he got around to blogging on Obamacare, what was the thrust of his post? “I would hardly consider my question a critique of sophisticed Obamacare critics such as Sowell, or even Vallicella, or even as a defense of Obamacare at all. It was a criticism of a certain type of popular but misguided criticism of health care reform.”
That tells you something about his incorrigible, moral priorities, does it not?
And let’s not forget that this was on the heels of two proabortion posts he recently did:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-defining-murder.html
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/07/getting-away-with-murder.html
Not to mention all the other proabortion posts he’s done.
You see, Reppert is a frontman for the eugenicists. And as long as you’re a nice, polite front man for the eugenicists, that’s all that matters.
"You see, Reppert is a frontman for the eugenicists."
ReplyDeleteIf you make a bald, unsupported statement like that about someone whose position seems to me to be far less definite, why would I believe what you say in areas where I have no knowledge? I think you have been unwise.
It was not unsupported. His arguments for abortion are transferable to eugenic abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, Obama is appointing eugenicists to key positions in his administration. Instead of critiquing that development, Reppert launches an attack on opponents of Obamacare.
Pro-abortion? Come on. I think there is a reasonable doubt with respect to the claim that fetuses before a certain stage have the same right to life that infants have. However, I do think human life has great value at any stage, and once a brain develops there is no morally relevant difference between the life of the fetus and the life on an infant. Given our state of reasonable doubt, I think that we should do all we can to discourage abortions, (24-hour waiting periods are parental notification are just fine with me), but a wholesale legal ban is probably not going to do what we want it to do. (I'm not sure such a law would even be obeyed at this point). Except for late-term abortions. Those should be illegal, unless the life of the mother is endangered. That won't satisfy movement pro-lifers, but I would consider eugenics and infanticide to be morally wrong. If we got the law the way I wanted it, the law would be far more conservative with respect to abortion than it currently is. I don't think this issue has pride of place amongst all issues, but then I asked you about that and you agreed that it doesn't occupy that position.
ReplyDeleteSuppose I ask the question, "Steve, why do you think life is an important value?", do you then have the right to accuse me of wanting to kill everybody? I could say "Why not say that death is a part of life, and that if it comes sooner or later shouldn't be such a concern to the government? Perhaps our concern with life is misplaced." If I did, it might be with the view to understanding why we value life, not an attack on the value of life principle itself.
As for the connection between Obamacare and eugenics, these claims have to be evaluated by the evidence. You can't just take what one person says and say it is certainly so. If a health care plan were to include eugenics, I would oppose it. I would have to look at the statements of these so-called "eugenicists" and see if they were taken out of context.
The point of the original post was to point out some misguided ways of arguing against Obamacare (if we understand what that is). The central claim of the Obama admistration, like that of the Clinton administration, was that people government should enable everyone to get health care.
Nothing in that debate has to do with eugenics or euthanasia. But if I were to write a post that said "How not to argue against Calvinism" would you then conclude that I had at last become a card-carrying Calvinist? Hardly. Obamacare could be a bad thing, but it could still be important not to attack it for the wrong reason.
Obama also appointed Francis Collins, and drew the wrath of people like P. Z. Myers. You just can't please everybody.
What my post indicated was a wrong way of attacking Obama's health proposal. I indicated two analogies, one is support of health care reform, the other opposed to it, and asked which was the more apt.
I know what you think. You think there is a culture war out there, and this is, like Star Wars, "A Simple Tale of Good and Evil," with one side right and the other wrong. So whoever isn't fighting on our side is against us. I think politics is a mixed bag with pluses and minuses on each side.
My complaint is not that you criticize me, but that you read things into my statements that aren't there.
VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
ReplyDelete“Pro-abortion? Come on. I think there is a reasonable doubt with respect to the claim that fetuses before a certain stage have the same right to life that infants have. However, I do think human life has great value at any stage, and once a brain develops there is no morally relevant difference between the life of the fetus and the life on an infant. Given our state of reasonable doubt, I think that we should do all we can to discourage abortions, (24-hour waiting periods are parental notification are just fine with me), but a wholesale legal ban is probably not going to do what we want it to do. (I'm not sure such a law would even be obeyed at this point). Except for late-term abortions. Those should be illegal, unless the life of the mother is endangered. That won't satisfy movement pro-lifers, but I would consider eugenics and infanticide to be morally wrong.”
i) You accept the personhood criterion for or against abortion. You don’t even challenge that criterion. You take that for granted.
ii) BTW, I don’t see how you can identify personhood with brain states consistent with your stated commitment to dualism.
iii) The personhood criterion underlies arguments for eugenic abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
iv) Where do you place the threshold for personhood? Does a newborn baby meet the threshold? What about a man with Down syndrome? What about a comatose patient? What about an elderly parent in the early stages of senile dementia?
v) You have also defended the right of SCOTUS to legalize abortion.
In that case, SCOTUS can also strike down waiting periods and parental notification.
BTW, that’s the point of parental notification absent parental consent?
“[Reppert] If I did, it might be with the view to understanding why we value life, not an attack on the value of life principle itself.”
ReplyDeleteYou have made personhood, which you equate with brain states, the life principle. You have then ranged that along a continuum, above and below the threshold of personhood.
“I would have to look at the statements of these so-called ‘eugenicists’ and see if they were taken out of context.”
i) And when are you going to do that?
ii) Eugenicists will say one thing when speaking to a sympathetic audience, but say something else for public consumption. Appointees and nominees often backpeddle from past statements when their past statements come under public scrutiny. They will say anything to get confirmed. They will claim to be quoted “out of context.” But the incriminating statements reflect what they really believe.
Eugenics is an incremental policy. Eugenicists know their agenda is unpopular, so they often dissemble–depending on the audience.
“Obama also appointed Francis Collins, and drew the wrath of people like P. Z. Myers. You just can't please everybody.”
Given his liberal views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, that example supports my case, not yours:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/07/francis-collins-on-abortion.html
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.07.13.001.pdart
In addition, Reppert recently argued that criminal intent is person-variable. It relies, not on the objective status of the victim, but on how assailant perceives the victim. Thus, if Peter Singer commits infanticide, that isn't murder inasmuch as Singer doesn't view a 2-year-old as meeting the threshold.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I advocated that, and certainly someone who dishonestly came to believe that Jews were not persons and killed them on that basis would be committing murder. The question, I guess, is whether it is possible for a person to be honest in believing that fetuses are not fully persons. Is there a reasonable doubt? Is Singer's beliefs about the personhood of infants reasonable?
ReplyDeleteI looked at the first article written by Smith on eugenics, and I don't think the guy Obama put in as a science advisor advocated eugenics. What he was concerned about was the possibility that the population explosion might threaten the survival of the human race (a lot of people thought that back in the 60s and 70s) and was laying out possible actions in case of that sort of emergency. That's different from a eugenicist, who just wants to selectively breed the human race to make it better (smarter, stronger, etc.) And he wasn't advocating that. There may be moral objections to what he was advocating, but it would be a misuse of terms to call it eugenics.
ReplyDelete