While some liberals are protesting the prospect that wild horses might be sterilized in Wyoming, other liberals are protesting the prospect that poor people might not be sterilized in Kentucky.
It is a crazy world indeed in which forced sterilization of horses is equated to voluntary sterilization of humans upon their request to make a polemical point in favour of theocracy.
The point is that Cothran consideres neither horses nor poor people intelligent enough to make their own decisions regarding sterilization, and so has no objection to taking that decision out of their hands.
The point is that Cothran consideres neither horses nor poor people intelligent enough to make their own decisions regarding sterilization, and so has no objection to taking that decision out of their hands.
It would probably be a good idea to actually be familiar with the issue you are commenting on. These services are not going away: they would simply be offered at other facilities. It's the Caring Compassionate Liberals Who Want To Reduce The Number Of Poor People who think that the poor are not intelligent enough to go get them right down the street.
Yes. I'm glad you liked all the things I said about theocracy, which, as is clear from reading the post, was my chief point. And speaking of my chief point, what is your view on policies designed to help poor people by reducing their numbers?
Let's see if we have this straight - the big bad Federal government has no business telling people where to get health care, but the church most certainly should be controlling the health care choices of everyone (including all unbelievers).
Um, yeah, an institution that historically (up to and including the present) has promoted all manner of torture, maltreatment, abuse, and murder is going to have the keys to health care. That makes lots of sense.
'These services are not going away: they would simply be offered at other facilities.'
INdeed - facilities that are smaller and harder to reach and thus not as accessible as big hospitals - where these services should be offered in any free, civil society if they are legal. Why does the Catholic Church get tax exemption if they then restrict the public services they provide on religius grounds?
Ah yes, I remember now - because they want to have their cake and eat it too.
'And speaking of my chief point, what is your view on policies designed to help poor people by reducing their numbers?'
I have stated before on one your post about the Beckhams (where I agreed with you, by the way, go check it out) that I am in favour of rational and sensible population control - for example via making contraception freely available and incentivizing low child birth rates in countries where births far outpace deaths (something the Catholic Church also opposed - not enough food to raise three children in Burkina Faso? The solution is simple: Have four more children!). Of course - in Europe, we have much of the opposite problem, so we have to incentivize births or immigration.
So when you speak of 'helping poor people by reducing their numbers', I think thats a great idea - I think we should have fewer rich people and fewer poor people and more people in the middle. The way to achieve that is very simply by socialist policies - not eugenics or euthanasia, as you myopically insinuate.
I am not in favour of - as you somehow feel entitled to alledge - forced sterilization of anyone, forced abortion, forced contraception etc. I never have been.
So again I kindly ask you to cite some kind of data to support your insinuation that liberals want to force poor people to be sterilized or used contraception. Where is the evidence? If you claim it - then support it. I'm willing to consider your evidence.
Or is this latest complaint of yours once again nothing more than hot air?
Martin Cothran said... These services are not going away: they would simply be offered at other facilities. It's the Caring Compassionate Liberals Who Want To Reduce The Number Of Poor People who think that the poor are not intelligent enough to go get them right down the street.
A reduction in the number of providers who offer a service reduces the ability of people to get that service. There can be issues with insurance, scheduling, and workload. many providers limit the number of Medicaid (or similar program) patients they accept, for example.
Oh, I do happen to work for a hospital which is associated with a few dozen community health centers, and previously worked at Anthem (Blue Cross/Blue Shield). But I do thank you for the recommendation that I learn more about the issue.
8 comments:
It is a crazy world indeed in which forced sterilization of horses is equated to voluntary sterilization of humans upon their request to make a polemical point in favour of theocracy.
The point is that Cothran consideres neither horses nor poor people intelligent enough to make their own decisions regarding sterilization, and so has no objection to taking that decision out of their hands.
Reminds me of Maafa21.
One Brow:
The point is that Cothran consideres neither horses nor poor people intelligent enough to make their own decisions regarding sterilization, and so has no objection to taking that decision out of their hands.
It would probably be a good idea to actually be familiar with the issue you are commenting on. These services are not going away: they would simply be offered at other facilities. It's the Caring Compassionate Liberals Who Want To Reduce The Number Of Poor People who think that the poor are not intelligent enough to go get them right down the street.
Singring,
Yes. I'm glad you liked all the things I said about theocracy, which, as is clear from reading the post, was my chief point. And speaking of my chief point, what is your view on policies designed to help poor people by reducing their numbers?
Let's see if we have this straight - the big bad Federal government has no business telling people where to get health care, but the church most certainly should be controlling the health care choices of everyone (including all unbelievers).
Um, yeah, an institution that historically (up to and including the present) has promoted all manner of torture, maltreatment, abuse, and murder is going to have the keys to health care. That makes lots of sense.
Not.
'These services are not going away: they would simply be offered at other facilities.'
INdeed - facilities that are smaller and harder to reach and thus not as accessible as big hospitals - where these services should be offered in any free, civil society if they are legal. Why does the Catholic Church get tax exemption if they then restrict the public services they provide on religius grounds?
Ah yes, I remember now - because they want to have their cake and eat it too.
'And speaking of my chief point, what is your view on policies designed to help poor people by reducing their numbers?'
I have stated before on one your post about the Beckhams (where I agreed with you, by the way, go check it out) that I am in favour of rational and sensible population control - for example via making contraception freely available and incentivizing low child birth rates in countries where births far outpace deaths (something the Catholic Church also opposed - not enough food to raise three children in Burkina Faso? The solution is simple: Have four more children!). Of course - in Europe, we have much of the opposite problem, so we have to incentivize births or immigration.
So when you speak of 'helping poor people by reducing their numbers', I think thats a great idea - I think we should have fewer rich people and fewer poor people and more people in the middle. The way to achieve that is very simply by socialist policies - not eugenics or euthanasia, as you myopically insinuate.
I am not in favour of - as you somehow feel entitled to alledge - forced sterilization of anyone, forced abortion, forced contraception etc. I never have been.
So again I kindly ask you to cite some kind of data to support your insinuation that liberals want to force poor people to be sterilized or used contraception. Where is the evidence? If you claim it - then support it. I'm willing to consider your evidence.
Or is this latest complaint of yours once again nothing more than hot air?
Martin Cothran said...
These services are not going away: they would simply be offered at other facilities. It's the Caring Compassionate Liberals Who Want To Reduce The Number Of Poor People who think that the poor are not intelligent enough to go get them right down the street.
A reduction in the number of providers who offer a service reduces the ability of people to get that service. There can be issues with insurance, scheduling, and workload. many providers limit the number of Medicaid (or similar program) patients they accept, for example.
Oh, I do happen to work for a hospital which is associated with a few dozen community health centers, and previously worked at Anthem (Blue Cross/Blue Shield). But I do thank you for the recommendation that I learn more about the issue.
Post a Comment