> The only objections to contraceptive access are religious in nature, and we can safely discard those.
I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.
I think this is pretty much his (her?) point. You've basically said that no matter what the point is, it's either not cogent or not valid.
Contraceptive access is a cornerstone of health policy in every developed nation. It has been endorsed by WHO and every study done has implicitly or explicitly has supported this position. What are the odds sdegutis has a good reason to object?
But people started talking about force, and the only force I can see in this case is the IRS (or the equivalent).
I'm frankly dismayed that HN seems so opposed to conscientious objection in this case. I presume it's an irrational prejudice against different (or maybe particular?) ethical worldviews.
That's all they're doing. And it's understandable. But that's not the part I take issue with.
There's an argument to be made against taxation there, but if we're going to have it, you should probably start with the better part of a trillion dollars Americans pay each year for killing brown people (or building the capability to kill them in the future), rather than the relatively negligible amount spent on contraception.
It still amazes me that people can make a fuss about being forced to pay for contraception with their tax dollars but those same people have no problem with their tax dollars being spent on war.
Philanthropic aid programs, on the other hand, are clearly optional (even if they are amazingly beneficial). If minorities object to contraception, let them opt out of paying for it on their tax form or something. And let other people choose to pay triple. Like you said, it's not a lot of money, so I don't know why we should grief a minority of people on this point.
You say "clearly", but it's definitely not, at least not to me.
My objections to opting out of war policy and drug laws were practical. Nations must be able to fight wars. Drugs must be regulated (if only to establish civil liability). I don't see how an individual can practically opt out of at least funding those things. Humanitarian aid, however noble, is not essential like war policy, and it's not inevitable like drug regulations. I can go into more detail, but it's fairly off topic.
I am interested in finding ways to let people live their consciences in the face of unjust wars and laws. One way is to make more decisions at the local level and then people can move if they get really fed up with policies. This doesn't work with war policy, but it can certainly work with drug prohibitions and humanitarian aid programs. I don't see why the city of Tampa Bay couldn't legalize marijuana and send millions of condoms to southern Asia or southern Africa.
Similarly, while I agree that regulating drug manufacture is a necessity, regulating drug consumption is not.
So there's first an argument from degree. It's not as simple as "Nations must be able to fight wars." Details matter a great deal, and I think a case could be made that even if war-fighting is necessary, the vast majority of what we currently spend on it is unnecessary and immoral.
Further, who decides what's necessary? I imagine a hard-core pacifist would argue that national defense is not actually a necessity. That same person might argue that access to good health care, including contraception, is a fundamental human right and therefore funding that is a necessity. Why should someone be forced to pay for anything they find immoral and unnecessary, even if you happen to think it's necessary?
My own response to that would be that some people are simply wrong about that, and allowing people to opt out of things they feel are unnecessary and immoral simply wouldn't work. The good thing about government is that it allows us to take collective actions that benefit us all but would fall victim to things like the free rider problem if they were funded voluntarily. But then we need some way of collectively deciding what's worth funding through government and forcing people to pay for, and what's not.
And this really just puts is back where we started. We have to fund some things, and no matter what they are, some taxpayers will feel that those things are unnecessary and immoral. That, I think, indicates that "I shouldn't be required to pay for things I find immoral" is not a good argument.
Besides, I've read your arguments in other threads. They are backwards, destructive (if actually implemented as public health policy) and have no basis in actual reality (your only argument is a hand-waving 'every-POTENTIAL(!!)-human-life-is-precious'). There is a reason why you, Jenny McCarthy and Ken Ham find yourself outsiders by the 'establishment' with your respective positions.
People use a hill of solid reasoning with a kernel of faith at very the bottom (kind of like the L4 microkernel family), whether that faith is in religion or something else. At the end of the day, everyone's argument will always come down to "I just think that's how the world works best."
Your position may be arguable without religion, but you're not doing that.
Basically, you stepped into a community that heavily leans atheist and rationalist, stated an opinion based on religion that the community disagrees with, and said that this makes you feel like an outsider. All I can say is, duh. And if you aren't interested in actually defending that opinion, what is the point? As far as I can tell, you were just looking for a little hit of persecution and martyrdom.
I'm stating my perspective and trying to back it up by my reasoning:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097627
But maybe all I'm doing is stating my opinion and that I just don't know the difference.
1. All births are good things. 2. Contraception causes fewer births. 3. Therefore contraception is not good.
...of course, correct me if I'm wrong.
It's a philosophical argument, not an empirical one, so it might be a little alien compared to the typical discussion thread on HN and similar venues.
It's like saying that spheres are good, and when asked why, saying that they're three-dimensional and round, and three-dimensional round things are good. Is that an argument? I don't really think so. An argument is where you state your reasoning in such a way that it could, at least potentially, convince the other person. Merely stating one of your opinions that happens to be related to another of your opinions doesn't qualify.
Personally, for #1, I don't think there's anything good or bad about a birth. More or fewer births, by themselves, don't matter. They take on good or bad qualities based on the context in which they happen. Preventing a birth before anything related even happens is not by itself good or bad, it's just something that happens. I'd wager most of the others on the "pro-contraception" side think likewise.
Do you see how that cuts both ways?
The original point was about disagreeing, on ethical grounds, with the idea that contraceptives are essential parts of sustainability initiatives. There really isn't a good counterargument to that objection since both sides really rest on qualitative opinions.
There's nothing wrong with arguing on ethical grounds, but you need to actually show how something is ethical, not just say "it just is" as is effectively being done here.