Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

The problem is that when money becomes the main goal it seems that people forget about morality, human rights and life. Do rights and justice go together with capitalism? I think they are opposites opposed

First it was agreed that God is dead and now it is agreed that philosophy as the love of wisdom is dead. Money is all that is left to supply the need for "meaning." The manipulation of health care is a great source of money and far more important than who lives or dies.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

Rights and justice only become opposed when both God as the source of meaning and philosophy as the love of wisdom for society as a whole have died. Idolatry replaces God and indoctrination replaces wisdom. The problem isn't capitalism but human nature without the religious and philosophical influences. The result must be a form of statist slavery proving Man as a whole has become incapable of freedom so invites psychological and political slavery.

Your perspective offers a deep dive into the historical and moral evolution of society. I appreciate your citation of John Adams, which underscores the foundational belief that governance, morality, and religiosity were interwoven in the founding ideals of many modern nations.

You've touched upon a profound idea, suggesting that when societies move away from moral and philosophical anchors, there can be a drift into materialism or a form of idolatry centered around money. Indeed, the moral fabric of a society can become strained when its primary orientation is profit.

However, it's also essential to recognize that capitalism, as an economic system, is neutral. It's how it's practiced and regulated that determines its moral and ethical outcomes. Just as a knife can be used to prepare food or harm someone, capitalism can be used to uplift society or exploit it. It becomes crucial, then, to have checks and balances that ensure ethical practices, especially in sectors as sensitive as healthcare.

To circle back to the topic of reproductive rights in the context of for-profit healthcare: the potential for exploitation does exist, as with any profit-driven endeavor. Yet, with proper oversight, ethical guidelines, and an educated and engaged populace, it's possible to have a capitalist system that respects and upholds these rights.

The key challenge is to ensure that the profit motive doesn't overshadow the fundamental human right to healthcare, reproductive or otherwise. How can society implement and maintain these checks and balances effectively? Can we reinvigorate philosophical and moral discussions at the heart of our societal systems to ensure justice and rights are always at the forefront?

[Sushan]

The cause of unwanted pregnancies is that sex is wanted (except in forced sex, and that is a very small percentage).

How it works is that a woman might get pregnant if she accepts sex with a man and does not ensure safety. She can and should reject if she does not want to be pregnant or has not ensured safety(birth control).

Instead, we have an abortion and emergency contraceptives. This together with classic birth control causes an untold amount of social damage.

- many sex partners and ladies may not be able to pair bond with a final mate if she wants to. The genetic material of each partner is imprinted, at some point pair bonding is no longer possible. This leads to a weaker partnership.

- lady can pick the best genetic partner without concern for a man's ability or willingness to provide. She knows she can abort or be funded by the government. This leads to a smaller number of men being shared by many women (the best men according to woman's biological choices) Leaving many men rejected until later in life when a lady is looking for a provider. (this really happens I know men in both groups).

Should free (tax-funded) health care pay for birth control. No, this is one of a small number of root issues of everything. No, instead the woman should reject until she is ready for a family and has secured a man she respects, admires, and will commit to her.

Thank you for your perspective on the topic. The relationship between reproductive rights and societal dynamics is multifaceted and varies across different cultures and contexts. It's interesting that you've approached it from the angle of personal responsibility and societal impact.

It's worth noting that the issue of reproductive rights, including the access to birth control and abortion, isn't only about the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies. It's also closely tied to women's autonomy, health, and socio-economic factors. The decision to use contraceptives or access abortion services can be influenced by numerous reasons, including medical conditions, financial stability, or personal life choices.

Your points about pair bonding and partner selection bring a biological and evolutionary psychology perspective to the table. While there is evidence to suggest that humans have biological inclinations in mate selection, it's essential to consider that modern society operates on more than just primal instincts. Education, economic status, personal beliefs, and societal norms all play significant roles in shaping an individual's decisions regarding relationships and reproductive choices.

Regarding the notion that only certain men are selected by women due to their genetic superiority, it's a perspective, but one that might be too reductionist. Human relationships are complex, and love, compatibility, shared goals, and mutual respect often supersede genetic or primal considerations.

Lastly, the concept of whether tax-funded healthcare should cover birth control can be seen from various angles. One might argue that by providing birth control, society could reduce the burden of unplanned pregnancies, which might have socio-economic implications. Others might argue from a personal responsibility perspective, as you have.

Ultimately, the debate around reproductive rights and healthcare is a reflection of broader societal discussions about autonomy, responsibility, and the role of the state. It's essential to approach such topics with empathy, understanding the myriad of reasons that influence individual choices.

What do you think are the best ways to ensure that both individual rights and societal well-being are balanced in these discussions?

[Sushan]

What are your thoughts on paying for birth control, I assume you are all for it, since it reduces baby killing, right?

Since men and women are both responsible for making babies and it hasn't been decided if these unfortunates should be loved or killed, it makes sense to avoid the problem to begin with and have both sexes pay for birth control.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The same holds true with birth control.

Seemingly you suggest the point of having or not having money will be a good factor to control abortions (it is not the only birth control method). But then what about the females who are left with unwanted pregnancies simply because they do not have money? What if they are victims of sexual assaults? Is it fair to force them to carry the baby of the assailant?

Good luck using the fairness argument discussing reproductive rights issues with a guy.

Thank you for raising that point. Discussions around reproductive rights and healthcare often tap into deeply held personal beliefs and values, and it's essential to approach them with sensitivity and respect. The perspective of fairness is indeed vital, but it's only one facet of a multi-dimensional issue.

As we delve into the topic, it's crucial to remember that reproductive rights encompass more than just the right to choose an abortion. It's about autonomy, healthcare, education, and access to information. By focusing only on the economics or the gendered perspective, we might miss out on a holistic view.

Regarding your point about discussing fairness with males, it's worth noting that many men are empathetic and can understand the implications of reproductive rights from a fairness and equity standpoint. Discussions are richer when they include diverse perspectives, and every voice adds value.

How can we ensure that our conversations remain constructive and inclusive, allowing for a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding reproductive rights?

[Sushan]

Since men and women are both responsible for making babies and it hasn't been decided if these unfortunates should be loved or killed, it makes sense to avoid the problem to begin with and have both sexes pay for birth control.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The same holds true with birth control.

Seemingly you suggest the point of having or not having money will be a good factor to control abortions (it is not the only birth control method). But then what about the females who are left with unwanted pregnancies simply because they do not have money? What if they are victims of sexual assaults? Is it fair to force them to carry the baby of the assailant?

Good luck using the fairness argument discussing reproductive rights issues with a guy.

Once the government recognizes baby killing for convenience as a legalized public good, money cannot be an obstacle. Who can deny a public good? Fork over the dough.

The premise that once the government recognizes a particular healthcare service as a public good, cost shouldn't be an obstacle, holds merit. However, the essence of the debate is more profound than merely the allocation of funds. Reproductive rights encompass a spectrum of issues, including autonomy, safety, and education. Focusing solely on the financial side can diminish the complexity and emotional depth of the subject. It's crucial to consider the broader perspective of ensuring dignity, choice, and health for all individuals.

[Sushan]

What are your thoughts on paying for birth control, I assume you are all for it, since it reduces baby killing, right?

Since men and women are both responsible for making babies and it hasn't been decided if these unfortunates should be loved or killed, it makes sense to avoid the problem to begin with and have both sexes pay for birth control.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The same holds true with birth control.

Sounds logical to me, though rare among pro-lifers.

I don't know what you mean by a pro-lifer I am a pro-lifer. This means that I respect life as a universal necessity and it is up to individuals to respect life and the balance of life from conception to death. Pro-choice in contrast believes that people are free to kill or cure depending on which way the wind is blowing. They avoid any serious contemplation on the universal purpose of life by leaving it up to government by laws to decide who lives or dies. They call this freedom pro-choice. Abortion and genocide follow the same pattern of avoiding the essential question of the meaning and purpose of life including human life and pass the buck to a government which understands even less so we end up with abortions and genocides justified by convenience and the old fashioned western slogan: "they deserved killing."

Be honest now: If humanity as a whole has lost the capacity for objective conscience and to feel respect for life, how can health care be anything but a business?

Thank you for elucidating your stance. The dichotomy between pro-life and pro-choice has long been a polarizing topic, and I appreciate your insight into the core philosophical beliefs that underpin your views. It's indeed a profound question about the relationship between our collective conscience and the commodification of healthcare.

From a philosophical standpoint, the intersection of healthcare, commerce, and morality presents ethical quandaries. Should healthcare, which deals directly with human well-being, be subject to market dynamics? Or should it remain insulated, prioritizing care over profit?

If our collective moral compass has shifted such that we view healthcare predominantly as a business, then this could potentially compromise the sanctity with which we view life and the care we provide. However, there are arguments to be made that a competitive healthcare system can lead to innovations and efficiencies that ultimately benefit patients.

[Sushan]

Since men and women are both responsible for making babies and it hasn't been decided if these unfortunates should be loved or killed, it makes sense to avoid the problem to begin with and have both sexes pay for birth control.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The same holds true with birth control.

Sounds logical to me, though rare among pro-lifers.

I don't know what you mean by a pro-lifer I am a pro-lifer. This means that I respect life as a universal necessity and it is up to individuals to respect life and the balance of life from conception to death. Pro-choice in contrast believes that people are free to kill or cure depending on which way the wind is blowing. They avoid any serious contemplation on the universal purpose of life by leaving it up to government by laws to decide who lives or dies. They call this freedom pro-choice. Abortion and genocide follow the same pattern of avoiding the essential question of the meaning and purpose of life including human life and pass the buck to a government which understands even less so we end up with abortions and genocides justified by convenience and the old fashioned western slogan: "they deserved killing."

Be honest now: If humanity as a whole has lost the capacity for objective conscience and to feel respect for life, how can health care be anything but a business?

Actually you don't have the power to define the thought processes of anyone other than yourself. Sorry.

What were you saying again?

Thank you for emphasizing the importance of individual perspectives. Let's circle back to the initial query: the potential effects of for-profit healthcare on reproductive justice/rights. In the context of our debate, how do you perceive that for-profit healthcare frameworks might impact accessibility and the range of choices available to individuals?