tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6420721719509674928..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Foundation of Conservative ThoughtRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13432359132087014622008-11-10T00:51:00.000-05:002008-11-10T00:51:00.000-05:00TUAD said:---Peter Pike --> Pundit --?--> Po...TUAD said:<BR/>---<BR/>Peter Pike --> Pundit --?--> Politician.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>No thanks. I still have dignity!Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33567628695361372302008-11-10T00:48:00.000-05:002008-11-10T00:48:00.000-05:00James,First it should be noted that many of the pr...James,<BR/><BR/>First it should be noted that many of the problems you bring up are only problems because of how Liberals have run the health care industry so far. Were it not for the excessive red tape that hospitals have to go through, were it not for the excessive malpractice lawsuits, were it not for the regulations that do not allow the medical industry to recoup their expenses via the market, then health care would not cost so much that being without insurance would immediately be a problem. In other words, you're basically asking me for a Conservative fix to a Liberal problem without scrapping the Liberal system in the first place.<BR/><BR/>You ask if there is a moral obligation for society to do what they can to protect life. Yes, within reason. But suppose that someone jumps off a bridge in a suicide attempt and, due to internal injuries, requires a kidney transplant. Their injuries are caused by their own actions, and I doubt very much that you would be willing to pay for this person's medical care under normal circumstances.<BR/><BR/>Or take a less extreme case. Suppose someone gets in a car accident without wearing a seatbelt. That person knows his risk of injury goes up if he does not wear a seatbelt. Why should the taxpayer be required to subsidize his idiacy because he didn't want to put his seatbelt on?<BR/><BR/>And that brings up another point. If I am on the hook for paying for someone's health care, then I should have the right to limit what kinds of actions they can and cannot do. In other words, if I am paying for your health care, then logically I have the right to demand that you not smoke, not drink, not eat fast food, not engage in any reckless behavior, etc. So to the extent that you require others to pay for your own healthcare, you give up your right to live as you please.<BR/><BR/>Now you can try to couch it, as you did, by saying:<BR/>---<BR/>So, the conservative thought is that one has a "right" to life only insofar as that one can keep oneself alive.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>But A) if it weren't for stupid government programs in the first place, you wouldn't need to find a job that specifically provided healthcare because you could afford it yourself; and B) people have the right to liberty as well as the right to life, and if these two come into conflict, we allow people to keep their freedoms and deal with the consequences of their decisions.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13139742159234291862008-11-09T16:46:00.000-05:002008-11-09T16:46:00.000-05:00BILL AYRES ADMITS THAT HE AND OBAMA WERE CLOSE FRI...BILL AYRES ADMITS THAT HE AND OBAMA <BR/><A HREF="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0" REL="nofollow">WERE CLOSE FRIENDS!</A><BR/><BR/>You have to see this.Claudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16705428441316701050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82951274566277725842008-11-09T06:02:00.000-05:002008-11-09T06:02:00.000-05:00Peter, thanks for this post. As I tell my kids, "t...Peter, thanks for this post. As I tell my kids, "the primary demarcation among people is those who believe in God, and those who don't." But that raises a question. <BR/><BR/><I> ... consider abortion on demand ... Since human rights are based on our humanity, not any concept of “personhood” or the location of the human being or the developmental status, then the Conservative position must always be against abortion on demand. The unborn is a human being; that is the only thing that human beings can create via reproduction. The unborn therefore has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.</I><BR/><BR/>All of us here (those of us here in good will) want to end the abortion problem. It would seem from your argument that the only way to "end abortion as we know it" is to invoke God: to work for, pray for, the conversion of those radical "pro-choice" powers that be. Those who have hijacked the very understanding of the issue by making this a question of "a woman's right to choose." That is insidious, but nevertheless, it has been enshrined in the public consciousness. <BR/><BR/>Is that correct? Is there a "natural law" argument that could possibly turn the tide of this argument? One that would "make sense" to the atheistic mind for whom "choice" is the all-good "Liberty" (in the triad of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.")<BR/><BR/>In talking with individuals who believe this way, I have been told that the fetus is a "tabula rasa," that is, even if it has "rights," the "rights" of this fetus (which is in essence, nothing of value) pale in comparison with a living, breathing woman whose life would be terribly infringed upon if this fetus were to be allowed to live. There truly is no remorse for the dead fetus. <BR/><BR/>In this case, invoking "God" is meaningless to this individual. <BR/><BR/>This is one reason why I have looked toward "two kingdoms" theology (as espoused by Michael Horton in his work, "Where in the World is the Church?" : <BR/><BR/>http://www.amazon.com/Where-World-Church-Christian-Culture/dp/0875525652/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226228011&sr=8-2 <BR/><BR/>His contention is that "the church must be the church," that is, Sundays must be devoted to worship of the Lord, and not to preaching about political issues as we are discussing here. The premise is that the church, as the church, is in a position to be the light of Christ in the world, which again, will be the answer that must be provided to my "tabula rasa" friend (better than anything I could say to him in an argument.) <BR/><BR/>That is, yes, we could, by force, enact laws prohibiting abortion. But these, themselves, would not be capable of persuading those such as my atheist friend, and no matter what progress is made through the enacting of laws, it would be undone in such times as we see now, with a President Obama who believes in "choice."<BR/><BR/>What form of persuasion would be necessary to end this pendulum swing, and persuade most people, on a fairly permanent basis, that the conceived child has a full right to life? <BR/><BR/>This, in a nutshell, is where I am hanging.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75239271430706513562008-11-08T23:13:00.000-05:002008-11-08T23:13:00.000-05:00Peter,A brilliant overview of the foundation of Co...Peter,<BR/><BR/>A brilliant overview of the foundation of Conservative thought; a tour-de-force actually.<BR/><BR/>Peter Pike --> Pundit --?--> Politician.<BR/><BR/>Do it! If you're in California, you got my vote!Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48239753843694480242008-11-08T22:39:00.000-05:002008-11-08T22:39:00.000-05:00We all have a "right to life".What does that mean ...We all have a "right to life".<BR/><BR/>What does that mean in practical terms? Yes, we are forbidden from actively taking the life of another (at least unless we can summon enough reasons or "evidence" that it is warranted), but beyond that .. what?<BR/><BR/>Does that right imply that society has a moral and/or legal obligation to preserving that life? Say, for instance, that a man comes to a hospital with some form of trauma that will end his life if some form of action is not taken. Unfortunately, that man has no insurance. <BR/><BR/>Now, are you saying that there is or is not a moral obligation for society to do what it should to preserve that man's life? If there is a moral obligation, is there also a legal obligation? <BR/><BR/>It seems that the conservative opinion is "no" to both. There is no "right" to free health care, no matter what the situation. If you're among the unfortunates who couldn't land a job with coverage, tough luck. This is evident from the barrage of criticism leveled at "Hilary care" which has been labeled with the most evil and malevolent of terms.<BR/><BR/>So, the conservative thought is that one has a "right" to life only insofar as that one can keep oneself alive. Otherwise, society has no moral or legal obligation to extend your life in any way just because you don't have the means to keep your heart beating yourself. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you think that there's a moral obligation but not a legal obligation. That's fine, but how is this obligation supposed to be fulfilled? Should someone in dire need make cold calls to individuals or their local churches?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.com